Signal quality input for error-detection codes in 5G and 6G

ABSTRACT

Wireless messages in 5G and 6G include error-detection codes appended or embedded in the message, such as Polar, LDPC, Turbo, and CRC codes. Analog fault tests based on the waveform signal of each message element can enhance the fault localization and mitigation, in many cases. Unexpected amplitude or phase variations, ambiguous modulation values, and polarization irregularities in or between message elements can localize the likely faulted message element(s). Turbo, Polar, and certain LDPC versions employ soft-decision decoding natively, and therefore can include the waveform results as extrinsic information. Other codes, such as basic parity, CRC, and basic LDPC, use hard-decision processes, but when combined with waveform diagnostics, can localize and mitigate faults. In life-threatening situations, rapid mitigation of a faulted message may save lives. The error-detection code, combined with waveform data, can rescue faulted messages in real-time, thereby improving latency, efficiency, and reliability of wireless communications.

PRIORITY CLAIMS AND RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 63/403,924, entitled “Phase-Noise Mitigation atHigh Frequencies in 5G and 6G”, filed Sep. 6, 2022, and U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application Ser. No. 63/418,784, entitled “Demodulation forPhase-Noise Mitigation in 5G and 6G”, filed Oct. 24, 2022, and U.S.Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 63/447,167, entitled“Incremental Realtime Signal-Quality Feedback in 5G/6G”, filed Feb. 21,2023, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 63/448,422,entitled “AI-Managed Channel Quality Feedback in 5G/6G”, filed Feb. 27,2023, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 63/496,769,entitled “Waveform Indicators for Fault Localization in 5G and 6GMessages”, filed Apr. 18, 2023, and U.S. Provisional Patent ApplicationSer. No. 63/497,844, entitled “Artificial Intelligence for FaultLocalization and Mitigation in 5G/6G”, filed Apr. 24, 2023, and U.S.Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 63/463,167, entitled “SignalQuality Input for Error-Detection Codes in 5G and 6G”, filed May 1,2023, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in theirentireties.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The disclosure pertains to wireless messaging, and more particularly tomethods for localizing and mitigating faults in messages.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Reliability is a key requirement, and a major challenge, fornext-generation wireless communications. Signal fading at highfrequencies and interference due to crowded network spaces areunavoidable sources of message faulting. Increasing the transmissionpower is a futile way to improve reception, because the competingtransmitters will follow suit. What is needed is a way to identify andcorrect message faults, in real-time, with low complexity proceduresthat simple IoT receivers can perform. Successfully mitigating messageswithout the delays and costs of a retransmission would enable higherthroughput, longer ranges, and improved reliability, especially fordemanding low-latency applications.

This Background is provided to introduce a brief context for the Summaryand Detailed Description that follow. This Background is not intended tobe an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter nor beviewed as limiting the claimed subject matter to implementations thatsolve any or all of the disadvantages or problems presented above.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a first aspect, there is a method for a wireless receiver to mitigatea fault, the method comprising: receiving a message comprising messageelements, each message element occupying exactly one resource element ofa resource grid, the message element comprising a signal waveform, thesignal waveform modulated according to a modulation scheme; determining,according to an error-detection code associated with the message, thatthe message is corrupted; for each message element, determining a signalquality according to the signal waveform; for each message element,determining, according to the signal quality, whether the messageelement is likely faulted; and determining, according to theerror-detection code, a corrected value of each likely faulted messageelement.

In another aspect, there is non-transitory computer-readable media in awireless receiver, the media containing instructions that, when executedby a computing environment, cause a method to be performed, the methodcomprising: receiving a message comprising message elements, eachmessage element occupying exactly one resource element of a resourcegrid, each message element comprising a waveform signal modulatedaccording to a modulation scheme; determining, according to anerror-detection code associated with the message, that the message iscorrupted; for each message element, determining a signal qualityaccording to the waveform signal; and for each message element,determining, according to the signal quality, whether the messageelement is likely faulted.

In another aspect, there is a method comprising: receiving, by awireless receiver, a message comprising multiple subcarriers of aparticular symbol-time of a resource grid, each subcarrier containing awaveform signal modulated according to a modulation scheme; receiving,by the wireless receiver, an error-detection code associated with themessage; determining, according to the error-detection code, that thewireless message comprises at least one fault; determining, for eachsubcarrier, according to the waveform signal of the subcarrier, adistribution of amplitudes of the waveform signal versus time;determining, for each subcarrier, a width of the distribution ofamplitudes; determining, for each subcarrier, according to the width ofthe distribution of amplitudes, whether the waveform signal of thesubcarrier is likely faulted; determining, according to theerror-detection code, for each likely faulted waveform signal, acorrected modulation value; and determining whether the message,including the corrected modulation value or values, agrees with theerror-detection code.

This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in asimplified form. The concepts are further described in the DetailedDescription section. Elements or steps other than those described inthis Summary are possible, and no element or step is necessarilyrequired. This Summary is not intended to identify key features oressential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended foruse as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.The claimed subject matter is not limited to implementations that solveany or all disadvantages noted in any part of this disclosure.

These and other embodiments are described in further detail withreference to the figures and accompanying detailed description asprovided below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with and without interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 1B is a schematic showing another exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with and without interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 2A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with minimal interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 2B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with minimal interference,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 3A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with rising interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 3B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with rising interference, accordingto some embodiments.

FIG. 4A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with peaking interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 4B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with peaking interference,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 5A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with frequency interference, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 5B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with frequency interference,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 6A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with phase noise, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 6B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform phase with interference, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 6C is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of an FFTspectrum of a waveform with frequency interference, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 7A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a transitionbetween sequential symbols, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 7B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a transitionbetween sequential symbols with interference, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 7C is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a runningamplitude during a symbol transition with and without interference,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 8 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a schematic forpolarization fluctuation detection, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 9 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a 16QAMconstellation chart including interference, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 10A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of thesuspiciousness parameters of the message elements in a message,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 10B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of themodulation deviation of equally-modulated message elements, according tosome embodiments.

FIG. 11A is a histogram showing an exemplary embodiment of adistribution of the modulation deviation of a series of messageelements, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 11B is a histogram showing an exemplary embodiment of adistribution of the signal quality of a series of message elements,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 12 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a resourcegrid containing a frequency-spanning message with a faulted messageelement, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a faulted message element, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining a distribution of the signal quality of each messageelement, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining which message element is faulted, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a message according to a hard-decision code and waveformdata, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a message according to a soft-decision code and waveformdata, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 18 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a neural netartificial intelligence model, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 19 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining the probability that a message element is faultedaccording to a waveform, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 20 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor localizing a probably faulted message element, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 21 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor correcting a corrupted message using an AI model, according to someembodiments.

FIG. 22 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor an AI model to select a worst message element according tocorrelations among waveform measurements, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 23 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor comparing a message to prior messages using an AI model, accordingto some embodiments.

FIG. 24 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor using an AI model to determine the meaning or intent of a message,according to some embodiments.

FIG. 25 is a chart showing an exemplary embodiment of probability valuesfor each message element having each of the modulation states, accordingto some embodiments.

Like reference numerals refer to like elements throughout.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Systems and methods disclosed herein (the “systems” and “methods”, alsooccasionally termed “embodiments” or “arrangements” or “versions” or“examples”, generally according to present principles) can provideurgently needed wireless communication protocols for identifying faultedmessage elements according to certain fault indicators in the receivedwaveform of each message element. The receiver can then correct thefaults using a combination of the waveform data and an error-detectioncode associated with the message. The waveform of a faulted signal isrich with information indicating the fault. An alert receiver can detectthese fault indicators and thereby identify the fault locations, leadingto a prompt mitigation using the error-detection code. Fault indicatorsinclude fluctuations in amplitude or phase of the as-received waveform,the modulation deviation including amplitude and phase deviationsrelative to predetermined modulation levels, amplitudes or phasesrelative to an average for the message, irregularities in thepolarization of the received signal, a frequency offset relative to thesubcarrier frequency, and certain inter-symbol transition features ofthe waveform. Each of these waveform irregularities may reveal thefaulted message elements while exonerating the rest of the message.Additional fault tests include the form and format of the message, itsbitwise content, previously received bit sequences or message elementsequences of similar messages, and the intent or meaning of the message.These fault indicators can identify the most likely faulted messageelements in many cases, and combined with the error-detection code, canenable a correction in real-time, without the costs and delays of aretransmission. The waveform data can also indicate when there are toomany faulted message elements for recovery, enabling the receiver toimmediately request a retransmission instead of wasting more timesearching for the corrected version. In addition, when the faults areclustered in a portion of the message, the waveform data can indicatewhich portion should be retransmitted instead of sending the wholemessage a second time, saving power and time.

The receiver can determine the distribution of fluctuations in amplitudeor phase in each message element's waveform, based on the digitizedwaveform signal of each message element. The receiver can determine anaverage amplitude or phase of the waveform within each message element,and then determine the variations in amplitude or phase relative to theaverage. The receiver can also determine the modulation deviation ofeach message element by measuring the difference between the modulationstate of the received message element and the closest predeterminedstate of the modulation scheme. The receiver can also determine thedifference between the average amplitude or phase and a closestpredetermined amplitude level of the modulation scheme. The receiver canalso check the received polarization, the inter-symbol waveformtransition, and the frequency offset relative to the nominal subcarrierfrequency. All of these can contribute to a determination of the signalquality of each message element. In addition, the receiver can augmentthe waveform diagnostics by testing the format, content, and meaning orintent of the message versus the expected values, and thereby localizethe suspicious message elements. The receiver can then attempt acorrection by direct calculation (based on an error-detection code) orby substitution (altering each likely-faulted message element andcomparing to the error-detection code) or by meaning/intent (that is, bydetermining which alteration of the faulted message elements wouldcomply with the expected meaning or intent). An AI model may greatlyenhance each of these procedures, as explained below.

The procedures disclosed below may be adapted to the modulation schemeand other message parameters. For example, if the message is modulatedin QAM (involving two orthogonal amplitude-modulated signals) then thereceiver can measure amplitude fluctuations in both I and Q branchamplitudes, since either can reveal interference in the faulted messageelement. The receiver can also measure variations in phase (according toa ratio of the two branch amplitudes) which can also indicate thefaulted message element. Alternatively, the message may be modulated inamplitude and phase of the raw waveform instead of QAM. In that case,the receiver can reveal the fault by measuring the width of theamplitude distribution and the width of the phase distribution for eachmessage element. If PSK modulation is used, involving just phasemodulation, the receiver can still measure both amplitude and phase,since wide fluctuations in each parameter indicates a likely faultedmessage element. In addition, the receiver can measure the deviation ordistance between the received modulation state of each message elementand the closest predetermined modulation level. For example, thereceiver can compare the amplitude as-received to a set of predeterminedamplitude levels of the modulation scheme to determine an amplitudemodulation deviation, and similarly for phase. Large modulationdeviations indicate likely faulted message elements. Similar tests aredescribed for polarization, waveform transitions between symbols, andfrequency offsets of each signal relative to the subcarrier frequency,each of which can indicate a likely fault. In many cases, the faultindications from each of these tests may be subtle, but when multiplefault tests are combined and correlated, the composite result may revealthe faulted message element with greater statistical significance.

Messages often include an error-detection code, such as a CRC or Turboor Polar or LDPC or other parity construct. The waveform data, whencombined with the error-detection code, can mitigate the likely faultedmessage elements. For example, the error-detection code can indicatethat the message is somehow corrupted, and the receiver can localize thefault or faults according to the waveform irregularities. The receivercan then use the error-detection codes to correct the faulted messageelements. Using the waveform data to localize the faults can greatlyreduce the amount of time, computation, and energy involved incorrecting the message. As a further example, when there are multiplepossibilities for mitigation, the receiver can generate candidatemessages in which the faulted message elements are altered in conformitywith the error-detection code, and can select the one that makes sensebased on the content of the message.

Some types of error-detection codes (such as Turbo and Polar codes)include non-binary or “extrinsic” information (that is, not just 1's and0's). The receiver can readily include the waveform data along with themodulation data, and using this enhanced extrinsic information tofacilitate the mitigation process further.

Other error-detection codes (such as CRC codes) indicate only whetherthe message is corrupted, but not where. In that case, the receiver canuse the waveform data to indicate which message elements are likelyfaulted, thereby facilitating a rapid recovery. Various other codes(such as LDPC) have versions with and without extrinsic information, andversions with and without indicating which message elements are likelyfaulted, with and without indicating the corrected values. In each case,the extra information provided by the waveform analysis can enhance themitigation by narrowing the search for the faulted message elements andindicating the most likely corrected value of those message elements.Embodiments may thereby enable even reduced-capability receivers tocorrect faults rapidly, without a retransmission, and at very low cost.

Artificial intelligence can assist in several stages of fault detection,localization, and correction. For example, an AI model can enhance theevaluation of the waveform signal quality of each message elementaccording to subtle and complex correlations between the amplitude andphase fluctuations, the modulation deviations, the polarization andtransition irregularities, and the frequency offset, among other tests.AI can also assist in applying tests based on the message content, bycorrelating the message type, its form or format, and the meaning orintent of the message with the appended error-detection code.Specifically, AI can be trained to determine the meaning or intent ofthe message based on content. After localizing the suspicious messageelements, AI can predict the correct values in many cases. In addition,the AI model can estimate the uncertainty in its prediction. Awell-trained AI model can perform each of these tasks better than anyhuman, faster than any human, and at insignificant cost afterdevelopment, according to some embodiments.

Many applications of the disclosed procedures are foreseen in wirelesscommunications, especially those with extremely tight latency andreliability requirements. For example, an autonomous vehicle could relyon a safety instruction message received from a traffic monitor. If themessage is faulted, the receiver must be able to detect, localize, andcorrect the fault quickly, before a collision occurs. Lives could dependon fault mitigation in this and other cases.

Embodiments of the procedures disclosed herein may be suitable forincorporation into a proprietary signal processing circuit, which mayprovide fast and automatic fault DL&C (detection, localization, andcorrection) upon receipt of each message, thereby successfullyrecovering each message fault before receiving the next symbol. Due tothe increasing importance of communication reliability innext-generation networks, especially those with severe interference andpropagation challenges, the real-time fault localization proceduresdisclosed herein may provide a key solution opportunity.

Glossary of Terms

Terms herein generally follow 3GPP (third generation partnershipproject) standards, but with clarification where needed. Jargon,ambiguous terms, and unhelpful acronyms are avoided. As used herein,“5G” represents fifth-generation (including 5G Advanced), and “6G”represents sixth-generation, wireless technology. A network (or cell or“LAN” Local Area Network or “RAN” Radio Access Network or the like) mayinclude a base station (or “gNB” or generation-node-B or “eNB” orevolution-node-B or “AP” Access Point) in signal communication with aplurality of user devices (or “UE” or User Equipment or user nodes orterminals or wireless transmit-receive units) and operationallyconnected to a core network (“CN”) which handles non-radio tasks, suchas administration, and is usually connected to a larger network such asthe Internet. The time-frequency space is generally configured as a“resource grid” including a number of “resource elements”, each resourceelement being a specific unit of time termed a “symbol period” or“symbol-time”, and a specific frequency and bandwidth termed a“subcarrier”. Symbol periods may be termed “OFDM symbols” (OrthogonalFrequency-Division Multiplexing) in which the individual signals ofmultiple subcarriers are added in superposition. The time domain may bedivided into ten-millisecond frames, one-millisecond subframes, and somenumber of slots, each slot including 14 symbol periods. The number ofslots per subframe ranges from 1 to 8 depending on the “numerology”selected. The frequency axis is divided into “resource blocks” including12 subcarriers, each subcarrier at a slightly different frequency.Subcarrier spacings of 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 kHz are defined invarious numerologies. Each subcarrier can be independently modulated toconvey message information. Thus a resource element, spanning a singlesymbol period in time and a single subcarrier in frequency, is thesmallest unit of a message. “QAM” or “quadrature” amplitude modulation(sometimes “PAM”) refers to two amplitude-modulated signals with a90-degree phase shift between them. The two signals may be called the“I” and “Q” branch signals (for In-phase and Quadrature-phase) or “realand imaginary” among others. Standard modulation schemes in 5G and 6Ginclude BPSK (binary phase-shift keying), QPSK (quad phase-shiftkeying), 16QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation with 16 modulationstates), 64QAM, 256QAM and higher orders.

“Classical” amplitude-phase modulation (sometimes “polar” modulation,“APSK” amplitude phase shift keying, “PQAM” polar quadrature amplitudemodulation, and others) refers to message elements modulated in bothamplitude and phase. Each of those terms applies to just a subset ofgeneral amplitude-phase modulation, and therefore are avoided herein.“SNR” (signal-to-noise ratio) and “SINR”(signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio) are used interchangeably unlessspecifically indicated. “RRC” (radio resource control) is a control-typemessage from a base station to a user device. “Digitization” refers torepeatedly measuring a waveform using, for example, a fast “ADC”(analog-to-digital converter) or the like. An “RF mixer” is a device formultiplying an incoming signal with a local oscillator signal, therebyselecting one component of the incoming signal. Communications generallyproceed in scheduled “channels” such as the PUSCH and PUCCH (physicaluplink shared and control channels) or the PDSCH and PDCCH (physicaldownlink shared and control channels) in addition to the PRACH (physicalrandom access channel) and PBCH (physical broadcast channel). Systeminformation messages include the “SSB” (synchronization signal block)and “SIB 1” (system information block number 1) among others. A “BSR”(buffer status report) indicates a size of a planned uplink message.“SR” stands for scheduling request. “FEC” codes are forwarderror-correction codes provided with a message to attempt to correcterrors. “CRC” are cyclic redundancy codes indicating whether a messageis corrupted. “LDPC” codes are low-density parity codes also indicatingfault conditions. “Polar” and “Turbo” codes are error-detection codesthat employ extrinsic information, which is information other thanbinary information. “Hard-decision” codes assign binary values (0 or 1)to variables, while “soft-decision” codes assign values other thanbinary. “FFT” (fast Fourier transform) converts a waveform to a spectraldistribution or vise-versa.

In addition to the 3GPP terms, the following terms are defined. Althoughin references a modulated resource element of a message may be referredto as a “symbol”, this may be confused with the same term for a timeinterval (“symbol-time”), or a composite waveform or “OFDM symbol”(orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing), each character in ademodulated message, among many other things. To avoid ambiguitiesherein, each modulated resource element of a message is referred to as a“modulated message resource element”, or more simply as a “messageelement”, in examples below. A “demodulation reference” is one or moremodulated “reference resource elements” or “reference elements”modulated according to the modulation scheme of the message andconfigured to exhibit levels of the modulation scheme (as opposed toconveying data). A “calibration set” is one or more predeterminedamplitude levels and/or phase levels of a modulation scheme, typicallydetermined by a demodulation reference. A “short-form” demodulationreference is a demodulation reference that exhibits only selectedamplitude levels, such as the maximum and/or minimum amplitude levels,from which the receiver can determine any intermediate levels bycalculation. A message may be transmitted “time-spanning” by occupyingsuccessive symbol-times on a single subcarrier, or “frequency-spanning”by occupying a single symbol-time on multiple subcarriers (not to beconfused with time-division duplexing TDD and frequency-divisionduplexing FDD which pertain to duplexing of message pairs, and havenothing to do with the shape of each message in time-frequency space).“RF” or radio-frequency refers to electromagnetic waves in the MHz(megahertz) or GHz (gigahertz) frequency ranges. The “raw” signal is theas-received waveform before separation of the quadrature branch signals,and includes a raw-signal amplitude and a raw-signal phase. “Phasenoise” is random noise or time jitter that alters the overall phase of areceived signal, usually without significantly affecting the overallamplitude. “Phase-noise tolerance” is a measure of how much phasealteration can be imposed on a message element without causing ademodulation fault. “Amplitude noise” includes any noise or interferencethat primarily affects amplitudes of received signals. A “faulted”message has at least one incorrectly demodulated message element,as-received. A “phase fault” is a message element demodulated as a statediffering in phase from the intended modulation state, whereas an“amplitude fault” is a message element demodulated as a state differingin amplitude from the intended modulation state. The receiver can alsocombine the two QAM branch amplitudes to determine a “sum-signal”, whichis the vector sum of the I and Q branch signals and generallyapproximates the raw waveform. A vector sum is a sum of two vectors,which in this case represent the amplitudes and phases of the twoorthogonal branches in I-Q space. The sum-signal has a “sum-signalamplitude”, equal to the square root of the sum of the I and Q branchamplitudes squared (the “root-sum-square” of I and Q), and a “sum-signalphase”, equal to the arctangent of the ratio of the I and Q signalamplitudes (plus an optional base phase, ignored herein). Thus thesum-signal represents the raw received waveform of a particularsubcarrier, aside from signal processing errors in the receiver—whichare generally negligible and are ignored herein.

As used herein, a “modulation deviation” is a difference between amessage element's received modulation state and the closest modulationstate of the modulation scheme, or alternatively the difference betweenthe received modulation amplitude or phase and the closest predeterminedamplitude or phase level of the modulation scheme. A “fluctuation” is ameasure of the temporal variations (relative to an average value) of thewaveform signal within a single resource element, such as fluctuationsin phase or amplitude within one symbol-time. The amplitude or phasefluctuations may be due to noise or interference. The signal in eachmessage element can be measured multiple times within each messageelement, and the distribution of amplitudes or phases in thosemeasurements can represent a “width” of the fluctuation distribution anda “peak” location of the distribution, either of which can indicatewhich message element is faulted. To demodulate the message element,such fluctuations are generally averaged for the entire message element,and then the average value is compared to the predetermined amplitude orphase levels. The “modulation quality” is inversely related to themodulation deviation. The “signal quality” is a composite metric fromthe various waveform measurements, in which low signal quality indicatesthe likely faults. “Suspiciousness” represents an overall estimate ofthe probability that the message element is incorrectly demodulated,based on the waveform signal-quality analysis plus the message contentanalysis. In general, a faulted message element is expected to have ahigher suspiciousness and lower signal quality than the non-faultedmessage elements, thereby enabling the receiver to identify the likelyfaulted message elements for mitigation. “Probable” and “likely” areused interchangeably.

How Interference Affects Waveform

Turning now to the figures, the following examples show how variouswaveform fluctuations can occur due to interference.

FIG. 1A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with and without interference, according to some embodiments.As depicted in this non-limiting example, a waveform received by awireless receiver is depicted as a sine wave 101 with zero noise andzero interference. Also shown is a typical interference 102 (verticallyoffset for clarity). The interference 102 in this case has the samephase as the signal waveform 101 but a smaller amplitude. The noise orinterference 102 generally adds or subtracts from the signal waveform101, depending on factors such as antenna orientation, phase, andtiming. For example, if the interference 102 is received“constructively”, it adds to the signal waveform 101, resulting in anincrease in amplitude as 103. If the interference 102 is received“destructively”, it is subtracted from the waveform 101, resulting inthe lower amplitude as 104.

Receivers generally use a narrow-band digital filter to separate eachsubcarrier waveform, and the digital filter admits only a narrow rangeof wavelengths. Digital filtering, among other signal processing, may beused to extract one subcarrier signal from an OFDM symbol that includesa large number of subcarrier signals superposed. The digital filter alsoselects noise or interference in the narrow subcarrier bandwidth.Alternatively, the receiver may determine the amplitudes and phases ofthe various subcarrier components directly from the OFDM signal, withoutexplicitly separating the waveforms. It is immaterial how the receiverchooses to extract the waveform data from the OFDM symbol. In each case,the bandwidth of the subcarrier filter (15 kHz at the lowestnumerology), suppresses features that represent frequenciessignificantly outside that bandwidth. Nevertheless, many signalirregularities pass the filter and can reveal each faulted messageelement.

FIG. 1B is a schematic showing another exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with and without interference, according to some embodiments.As depicted in this non-limiting example, the noise-free signal waveform111 is shown as in the previous figure, and now the noise orinterference 112 has a 90 degree phase shift relative to the signalwaveform 111. When added to the signal waveform 111, the interference112 causes a phase shift as shown at 114. When the interference 112 issubtracted from the signal waveform 111, the combined waveform 113 has aphase advance as shown.

A receiver may incorrectly demodulate a message element that has anamplitude or phase change due to interference of the types depicted,thereby causing a fault. Therefore, the receiver can localize thefaulted message element according to an unexpected amplitude or phasevalue, or a fluctuation or other irregularity in the amplitude or phase,of the message element's waveform.

In an OFDM symbol, each subcarrier signal is transmitted orthogonal toits neighboring subcarrier signals. Orthogonality, in this sense, meansthat the net overlap between two adjacent subcarrier waveforms istheoretically zero. Signal orthogonality greatly suppressesinter-subcarrier crosstalk, but only for the transmitted signal.Orthogonality does not apply to noise and interference because the noiseand interference can have arbitrary phase and frequency. Many types ofnoise and interference generate a detectable signature on the waveform,a signature that passes the filter and can be used to identify faults.Hence one purpose of the disclosed procedures is to enable the receiverto measure the effects of noise and interference on the waveform itself,and thereby identify those message elements that have been faulted, andto correct them in real-time.

FIG. 2A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with a small amount of noise, according to some embodiments. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, the waveform signal 201 of asingle message element is shown schematically as a sine wave filling asymbol-time (not to scale). Some noise is superposed; hence the waveform201 appears somewhat fluctuating in amplitude, as shown. The receivercan measure the amplitude fluctuations and determine a distribution ofamplitudes, or equivalently, of the amplitude fluctuations relative toan average. The receiver can then determine an average size of theamplitude fluctuations, and can determine a corresponding width of thefluctuation distribution. Message elements that have the largestfluctuations (or the widest distribution) are likely faulted, or atleast suspicious.

FIG. 2B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude including minimal random noise,according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example,the distribution of waveform amplitudes is plotted as 211. Thedistribution is zero-centered because the predetermined amplitude levelof the modulation scheme has been subtracted. In the depicted case, theamplitude distribution 211 is a “normal” or “Gaussian” distributioncharacteristic of thermal noise or amplifier noise in the receiver. Thehorizontal axis is demarked in standard deviations of the Gaussian.However, in some cases (shown below) the distribution is not Gaussian,and therefore a more convenient measure of distortion may be the FWHMfull-width at half-maximum of the distribution 211. Another valuablediagnostic is the peak position (or skew) of the amplitude distribution.The peak is centered in the depicted case. In other cases, depictedbelow, the distribution can be displaced by asymmetrical distortions.Since noise and interference tend to increase the width and/or skew ofthe fluctuation distribution, the receiver can identify the most likelyfaulted message element or elements, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 3A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with temporally rising interference, according to someembodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a waveform 301 ofa single message element is increasing in amplitude during thesymbol-time, due to some kind of changing noise or interference. Thereceiver can measure the amount of amplitude fluctuation, and candetermine that significant interference is present.

FIG. 3B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with rising or fallinginterference, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, the distribution of amplitude values observed inthe received waveform 301 is shown as the solid line 311. The originallow-noise Gaussian 312 is also shown in dash for comparison. As shown,the fluctuation distribution 311 is widened due to the substantialvariation in amplitude during the symbol-time.

Here and below, distortions are shown exaggerated for clarity. Some ofthe exaggerated effects would be suppressed by the narrow-band digitalfilter, and some would appear in a different form in other subcarriers,but are included here for illustration purposes.

FIG. 4A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with peaking interference, according to some embodiments. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, a signal waveform 401 increasesand then decreases in amplitude during the symbol-time, due totime-dependent interference for example. The receiver can detect theinterference according to the time-dependent amplitude, and can therebyidentify suspicious message elements.

FIG. 4B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with peaking interference,according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example,the amplitude distribution 411 for the waveform 401 is shown, skewed bythe asymmetric variation of amplitudes during the amplitude changes,along with the original distribution 412. The receiver can measure thewidth and the peak position to determine that interference is present.

FIG. 5A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signal wavewith interference, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, a waveform 501 is beset by strong interference ata slightly different frequency (but within the filter bandwidth),resulting in the interference pattern shown.

FIG. 5B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform amplitude with frequency interference,according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example,the amplitude distribution 511 is double-peaked due to the shape of thewaveform 501. Most of the amplitudes in 501 are either larger or smallerthan the average, while the intermediate sizes are under-represented.The receiver can detect the increased width of the amplitudedistribution, relative to the expected distribution 512, and can therebydetermine that severe interference is likely happening in the affectedmessage element.

A wide variety of other amplitude fluctuations and distributionfunctions are possible, depending on the amplitude, phase, and temporalfluctuation of the encroaching interference. The receiver may detect thedistortion either by measuring the amplitude fluctuations directly, orby determining the width of the amplitude distribution within themessage element's symbol-time, or by detecting the peak position of thedistribution, or other parameters of the fluctuations and/or thedistribution function.

The foregoing examples deal primarily with amplitude fluctuations. Phasefluctuations can also indicate interference, and can be processed in asimilar way to reveal the faulted message element, as the next exampleshows.

FIG. 6A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a signalwaveform with time-dependent phase noise, according to some embodiments.As depicted in this non-limiting example, a received signal waveform 601is a sine wave with varying phase or frequency (greatly exaggerated) dueto noise. A phase or frequency fluctuation due to noise or interference(such as that shown in FIG. 1B for example) may be detected in variousways. The phase fluctuation can be measured according to a varyingrelative phase between a local oscillator and the signal waveform 601,or by digitizing and Fourier transforming the waveform to reveal awidened spectrum, or by measuring the zero-cross times of the waveformversus time during the message element, among other possible ways.

FIG. 6B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a fluctuationdistribution of a waveform phase with interference, according to someembodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a distribution ofphase fluctuations (or equivalently, frequency fluctuations) is shown611 including the severe phase variations of the previous figure. Forcomparison, a low-noise phase distribution 612 is also shown (dash) ofphases of the waveform of a message element that has normal (Gaussian)noise but no interference. The phase distribution 611 is shown truncatedat both ends due to the narrow-band digital filter. The truncated energymay appear in the adjacent subcarriers. The wide distribution 611 mayindicate to a receiver that phase noise or frequency interference ispresent, thereby rendering the message element suspicious.

The receiver can also detect a faulted message element according to afrequency offset within the subcarrier, as shown in the followingexample.

FIG. 6C is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of an FFTspectrum of a waveform with frequency interference, according to someembodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a frequencyspectrum with a frequency offset 621 is shown along with an unshiftedspectrum 622 (dash). Both spectra have low noise in this case, asindicated by the width of the shifted peak 621 which is about the samewidth as the low-noise peak 622. The receiver can measure the frequencyoffset by performing an FFT on the digitized waveform and comparing thepeak center relative to the local oscillator of the receiver, and canthereby reveal the likely faulted message element. In some cases, theinterference results in two spaced-apart frequency peaks, which wouldalso indicate that the message element is suspicious. Other spectraleffects are possible depending on interference, almost all of whichwould indicate that the affected message element is likely faulted.

Following is a different waveform diagnostic which relates to thetransition region between two successive message elements. A receivercan detect a faulted message element when the waveform in a transitioninterval between sequential symbol-times is distorted, as shown in thefollowing examples.

FIG. 7A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a waveformtransition between sequential symbols, according to some embodiments. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, a transition interval 702 isshown between the signals in two sequential symbol-times 701, 703“symbol-1” and “symbol-2” on the same subcarrier. The transitioninterval 702 may represent the “ending” of symbol-1 and the “beginning”of symbol-2, or may be split between the two adjoining symbol-times. Thetwo symbols probably belong to two different messages, because messagesare usually configured frequency-spanning (occupying multiplesubcarriers at a single symbol-time). Nevertheless, certain features ofthe transition waveform can reveal interference in each of the messageelements.

The two adjacent symbol-times usually have different modulations, suchas different amplitudes or phases. Therefore the transmitted signal of aparticular subcarrier must transition from the first waveform 701 downto the second waveform 703 during the transition interval 702. Astransmitted, the transition is generally smooth and featureless sincethe two symbols are at the same narrow subcarrier frequency. However, ifthere is external interference, the received waveform can be distortedduring the time that the signal amplitude and the interfering amplitudeare both changing, that is, during the transition interval. Hence thereceiver can determine that one or both of the message elements aresuspicious.

In this figure there is no such interference. The waveform is initiallylarge at 701, representing the modulation of symbol-1, and then tapersinto a smaller amplitude at 703, representing the modulation ofsymbol-2. The amplitude in the transition region 702 is featureless andmonotonic (aside from the RF), thereby indicating that interference iseither zero or negligible.

FIG. 7B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a transitionbetween temporally sequential symbols with interference, according tosome embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a firstsymbol-time waveform 711 transitions to a second symbol-time waveform713 on the same subcarrier, through a transition region 712. In thiscase, there is substantial interference which shows up primarily in thetransition interval 712 as an erratic fluctuation in the amplitude.There may also be a fluctuation in phase.

An irregular transition waveform such as 712 may result from signalsreceived from two transmitters in neighboring networks with a timingoffset. The two transmitters may have displaced time-bases, or the timeoffset may can result from the different propagation times. Suchinterference may be difficult to detect during the stable waveformintervals of each message element since the interference is constant inthose times. During the transition interval 712, however, the summedamplitude may vary erratically due to the two signals changing inamplitude or phase.

A receiver can detect the amplitude or phase fluctuations during thetransition interval 712, and can thereby determine that either symbol-1or symbol-2 may be faulted. For example, the receiver can determine themaximum rate of change of the amplitude, or of the phase, or of someother waveform parameter in the transition region. The smooth low-noisetransition of the previous figure generally has a low rate of change(after deducting the RF component) whereas the interfered version of thepresent figure exhibits chaotic variations with a high rate of change.The receiver can measure the fluctuation distribution at the leadingtransition before symbol-1 and the trailing transition after symbol-2.In some cases, both the leading and trailing transitions, before andafter each message element, are affected.

FIG. 7C is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a runningamplitude during an inter-symbol transition with and withoutinterference, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, a smoothed schematic (with sine wave suppressed)of an interference-free transition 722 is shown in dash, along with astrongly irregular transition 721 due to interference. Thus the smoothtransition 722 may correspond to the waveform of FIG. 7A, while thenoisy transition 721 may correspond to the waveform of FIG. 7B. Thereceiver can measure the transition variations and thereby determinewhether interference is present in the adjoining message elements.

As a further detection method, a faulted message element may beidentified according to an anomalous polarization due to interference,as shown in the following example.

FIG. 8 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a circuit fordetecting a temporary change in the polarization of a signal, accordingto some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, anantenna 801 includes two sensor elements 811, 812 oriented to detect twodifferent electromagnetic polarizations (at ±45° in this case). Thesensor elements 811, 812 are connected to two analog-to-digitalconverters (ADC) 802 which digitize the two polarization signals andfeed them to a processor 803. The processor 803 measures the power oramplitude received in the two polarization directions and forms a ratio.An intruding signal, with different transmission or propagation history,may alter the polarization of the received waveform. Therefore thereceiver can detect a faulted message element according to a ratio ofthe polarization components.

An additional way for a receiver to detect a fault pertains to themodulation state of the received message element, as explained in thefollowing example.

FIG. 9 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a 16QAMconstellation chart, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, a constellation chart 901 of 16QAM includes the 16allowed states 902 arranged by I-branch and Q-branch amplitudes. Thetransmitter transmits each message element according to one of theallowed states 902, but the receiver generally receives the messageelement with a displaced modulation due to noise and interference. Inthis case, a received message element is received with the modulationshown by a circle 903, which is displaced from the as-transmittedmodulation state 907. The “overall modulation deviation” is the amountof displacement 904, which equals the root-sum-square of the I-branchmodulation deviation 905 and the Q-branch modulation deviation 906. Thusthe receiver can localize the faulted message element according to thesizes of the branch modulation deviations 905, 906 or by the overallmodulation deviation 904.

In addition, the receiver can determine a phase rotation angle for eachmessage element, according to a ratio of the I and Q branch amplitudes.Phase fluctuations can then show up as a variation in the phase rotationangle for different message elements, and are likely largest in thefaulted one.

The figure shows a QAM modulation scheme. If, instead, the message ismodulated in an amplitude-phase modulation scheme, the receiver candetermine the modulation deviation according to the difference inamplitude between the waveform amplitude and the nearest amplitude levelof the modulation scheme, and likewise for the phase modulationdeviation.

The units of amplitude and phase are different, which may complicate thecalculation of the overall deviation. Therefore the receiver can tallythe amplitude fluctuations and the phase fluctuations separately.Alternatively, the receiver can “normalize” the amplitude deviations bydividing the difference by the level separation, that is, divide thedifference between the received amplitude and the nearest predeterminedamplitude level of the modulation scheme by the separation betweenadjacent amplitude levels. The phase difference may be normalized in thesame way. Then the normalized difference values, which are unitless, canbe combined or compared directly.

The modulation deviation can be determined in a similar way for othermodulation schemes that involve predetermined modulation levels such asamplitude or phase levels. The modulation deviation can then be used bythe receiver, generally in combination with other waveform parameterssuch as the amplitude and phase fluctuations of each message element, tolocalize the likely faulted message elements. Often the predeterminedmodulation levels of the modulation scheme are provided or exhibited tothe receiver in a demodulation reference, which is preferably locatedclose to or concatenated with the start of the message, and may also beembedded in the message, or included elsewhere proximate to the message.

The receiver can calculate an overall “suspiciousness” metric, bycombining the phase fluctuations, the amplitude fluctuations, theamplitude and phase modulation deviations, and any other waveformparameter that may be affected by noise or interference. Faulted messageelements may be revealed by an increase in suspiciousness relative tothe other message elements, since a faulted message element generallyexhibits a larger fluctuation in at least one measurable parameter. Thereceiver can thereby localize the faults and attempt a correctionwithout resorting to a costly retransmission.

FIG. 10A is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of certainwaveform parameters that can indicate a fault in each message element ina message, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, various parameters of the waveform of each messageelement of the message are plotted against the horizontal axisrepresenting the subcarriers of this frequency-spanning message. Thusthe chart spans all of the message elements in the message.

The first line 1001 represents the amplitude modulation deviations ofthe raw amplitudes received by the message elements (if amplitude-phasemodulation) or the Q-branch amplitude modulation deviations (if QAM).The amplitude of the waveform can be measured at multiple times withineach message element, thereby determining both an average amplitude (fordetermining the modulation deviation) and a fluctuation distributionwidth, such as the FWHM of an amplitude distribution, as discussed inFIG. 2B. A narrow-band burst of interference 1003, occupying a singlesubcarrier, is indicated by an arrow 1003. Accordingly, a smallenhancement 1002 of the amplitude modulation deviation is present at thesubcarrier of the interference.

The second line shows the modulation deviation 1011 of the phase (ifamplitude-phase modulation) or the I-branch amplitude modulationdeviation (if QAM). Again there is evidence of a small enhancement 1012due to the interference 1003. A waveform phase can also be determinedfor QAM message elements according to a ratio of the I and Q branchamplitudes, which is geometrically related to the amplitude deviationsof the two branches. For example, the QAM modulation scheme specifies acertain ratio of the branch amplitudes of each allowed modulation state,whereas phase noise causes a rotation in I-Q space which can be measuredaccording to the ratio of the branch amplitudes. In each case, thedistortion is expected to be larger, in general, for the faulted messageelement than for the non-faulted message elements.

The third line 1021 shows the FWHM fluctuation width of the raw waveformamplitude or the I-branch amplitude within each message element, withpossibly a slight enhancement at 1022 at the interference.

The fourth line 1031 shows the FWHM phase fluctuation of the rawwaveform or the Q-branch amplitude fluctuation, with again a small andunconvincing enhancement 1032 corresponding to the interference.

The fifth line 1041 shows the polarization of the received waveform,relative to the average. Interference can cause polarization changes dueto propagation differences between the interfering signals. Thepolarization of the received waveform can be determined in an antennaequipped with two orthogonal sensor elements, each sensor elementgathering RF energy from one linear polarization only. The receiver cancompare the received signals in the two sets of polarized sensors,calculate a ratio of the amplitudes of the two components, and detect alocalized change in the polarization ratio, which may indicate that themessage element has significant interference. As depicted, thepolarization change at the faulted message element, due to theinterference, is marginally noticeable at 1042.

The sixth line 1051 is a measure of the smoothness of the transitionregions adjacent to the symbol-time of each message element. Thetransition waveform can be distorted by signals from two differentsources at different distances or with different time-bases, resultingin distortions in the transition region when the amplitudes arechanging, which a receiver can detect. For example, the transitionbetween one resource element and a subsequent one at the nextsymbol-time, as received, is generally smooth and monotonic. Thereceiver, after separating the subcarrier signals in a single OFDMsymbol, can determine whether the transitions are smooth and monotonic,or structured by interference or other pathology. Thus the inter-symboltransitions on one or both sides of each message element can reveal alikely faulted signal. In the depicted case, a small enhancement 1052 isshown at the faulted message element.

The seventh line 1061 indicates the frequency offset, relative to thesubcarrier frequency, as measured in each message element, limited bythe narrow-band digital filter. In this case, a small frequency skewindicates possible interference at 1062. The frequency offset can bequantified by calculating the Fourier transform of the digitizedwaveform, in which the digitization clock is controlled by thereceiver's local oscillator. A small frequency offset which is uniformthroughout the message is probably indicative of a local oscillatordrift, not interference. However, if the frequency offset of one messageelement is significantly larger than the other message elements, thedeviant one is likely faulted.

The last line shows the overall suspiciousness 1071, determined bycombining the listed fault indicators, plus optionally other waveformdiagnostics. The suspiciousness may be calculated by combining theindividual characteristics, such as the sum or square or magnitude ofthe individual characteristics, so that a larger amplitude deviationresults in higher suspiciousness and lower signal quality. The combiningmay include taking the magnitude of certain effects that indicateinterference regardless of sign, such as the polarization change or thefrequency offset. The combining may include averaging or summing orother ways of including each diagnostic result.

In the depicted case, although each of the individual parameters showonly a relatively weak effect of the interference 1003, the enhancement1072 in the combined metric is obvious. That is because the combiningtends to average over the random small variations of the non-faultedmessage elements, whereas the faulted message element includescontributions from many of the separate tests, thereby enhancing thesignificance of the peak, more clearly indicating the fault.

In some measurements, the effect of interference may be negative ratherthan the positive excursions shown here. In that case, the receiver maycombine the various measurements in magnitude, so that both positive andnegative excursions contribute equally to the overall suspiciousness.For example, the various parameters can be added in magnitude, or as aroot-sum-square, or other formula for averaging random fluctuationswhile constructively combining shared enhancements, so as to produce asignificant peak only at the faulted message elements. In this case, thereceiver has subtracted an average suspiciousness value, furtheremphasizing the interference peak 1072.

The receiver may obtain further fault sensitivity by comparing thesubset of message elements that have the same demodulation value. Acomparison of the same-modulation message elements should provide extrafault sensitivity, since the equal-modulation message elements areexpected to have nearly identical amplitude and phase—that is, unlessone message element is distorted by interference. Such a“like-versus-like” comparison can sensitively expose one or a fewmessage elements that have interference. For example, one or two of themessage elements may have waveforms with a peculiar amplitude or phaseor fluctuation distribution, or some other measurable feature thatdiffers from the other message elements that have the same modulationstate. The receiver can obtain enhanced sensitivity by comparing messageelements that have the same demodulation, and can thereby expose thelikely faulted message elements that differ from the rest, even when thepeculiar ones are within the acceptance range for demodulation and showno other error features. The fact that they differ perceptibly fromtheir supposedly equivalent neighbors may indicate that the peculiarones have extra noise or extra interference. Many such comparisons arepossible, according to each modulation state of the modulation scheme,and according to each measurable parameter discussed above. Each ofthose comparisons represents another fault diagnostic and hence may beadded to those shown in FIG. 10 for even greater fault sensitivity.

FIG. 10B is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of themodulation deviation of equal-modulation message elements, according tosome embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a receivercan compare the modulation of a subset of the message elements that havethe same modulation, and thereby achieve greater sensitivity to outlierssince they should all have (about) the same deviation. A single messageelement (or a few) that deviates from the average is likely faulted. Theexample pertains to the phase distribution of message elements modulatedin QPSK, but the method can apply as well to other modulation schemessuch as the I and Q branch amplitudes of QAM or the raw amplitude andphase of an amplitude-phase modulation scheme, among others.

The phase of each message element is shown as a dot 1081. Since QPSK hasfour allowed phase levels, there are four predetermined phase levelsindicated by vertical lines 1082, which represent 0-90-180-270 degreesor 45-135-225-315 degrees depending on the implementation. As expected,the various message elements 1081 cluster around the four predeterminedphase levels 1082. Also shown at the bottom is the phase distributionfunction 1083 for each set of message elements. It may be noted that thephase distributions 1083 are all shifted by a small amount relative tothe nominal phase levels of QPSK. This offset is usually due to phasenoise or drift in the local oscillator, which results in a small phaseshift 1086 in all of the message elements (in a single symbol-time)relative to the closest predetermined phase level 1082. The phase shift1086 is the same for all of the distribution functions 1083 because thelocal oscillator affects them all in the same way, in afrequency-spanning message.

One of the message elements 1084 has a larger than average deviation,relative to the average phase of the set of same-modulation messageelements. The peculiar modulation of message element 1084 can be seen inthe point position as well as the distribution function 1085. Theoutlier 1084 deviates from the average phase of the equal-modulatedmessage elements. If the message is then found to be corrupted, theoutlier message element 1084 is the most likely faulted message elementand may be altered first in any mitigation attempt.

Enhanced sensitivity is obtained by comparing the message elements withthe same nominal phase (225 degrees in this case), thereby making theoutlier 1084 visible. For even greater fault detection, theequal-modulation comparison of this example may be combined with thevarious diagnostic tests of the previous example.

Importantly, the outlier 1084 is revealed in this case by comparing tothe ensemble average of the equal-modulation elements, not to thepredetermined phase level of the modulation scheme 1082. The outlier1084 not far from the predetermined phase level 1082, and thereforewould NOT be flagged as suspicious if the received phase were comparedto the predetermined phase levels of the modulation scheme. Instead, inthis example, the as-received phases of the message elements arecompared to the average phase of the other message elements thatdemodulate to the same state. If the comparison were made to the closestpredetermined phase level, the outlier message element would hardly seemsuspicious, since the phase noise shift 1086 largely cancels the phasedeviation of this one point 1084. The faulted message element isrevealed, in this case, only by the comparison with the average phase ofthe other message elements that have the same demodulation state.

Prior art error-correction procedures that include extrinsic informationbased on the modulation deviation, such as Turbo and Polar decodingprocedures and certain LDPC procedures, generally fail to make thisimportant distinction. By incorrectly comparing the as-receivedmodulation to the predetermined modulation level of the modulationscheme, even when there is an overall shift in the as-received values,prior-art codes generally calculate the LLR incorrectly. When there is anon-zero offset of the average and the outlier deviation is in theopposite direction, the cancellation masks the actual deviation and canresult in a missed fault indicator and a failed mitigation attempt.

Following is as an alternative way of presenting the waveformmeasurements. The data for each message element may be charted as ahistogram, as disclosed below.

FIG. 11A is a histogram showing an exemplary embodiment of adistribution of the modulation deviations of a series of messageelements, according to some embodiments. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, the histogram 1101 is a chart showing the numberof message elements with each value of the modulation deviation. Themodulation deviation, in this example, is the magnitude of the distancebetween the received modulation value and the nearest allowed modulationlevel, for amplitude and phase modulation levels. Most of the messageelements have modulation deviations that are relatively small, clusteredtoward the left side of the distribution. This indicates that most thereceived message elements had low noise and thus were close to thepredetermined modulation levels. However, a single message element 1102is seen at a significantly higher modulation deviation, raisingsuspicion that it is faulted. Now, if the message is subsequently foundto agree with its error-detection code, then the outlier 1102 would beassumed to be correctly demodulated despite its large modulationdeviation. But, if the message fails the error-detection test, then atleast one message element is faulted, in which case the outlier messageelement 1102 is the most likely suspect. The other fault diagnostics,such as the amplitude fluctuation width, the frequency offset, thepolarization irregularities, and so forth can be processed in a similarway, for further fault sensitivity.

FIG. 11B is a histogram showing an exemplary embodiment of adistribution of the signal quality of a series of message elements,according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example,the signal quality of each message element is a combination of theamplitude and phase signal fluctuations (such as the FWHM width of thedistribution within each message element), the peak offset of eachdistribution, the amplitude and phase modulation deviations (relative tothe predetermined amplitude and phase levels of the modulation scheme orto an average value), an inconsistent polarization, fluctuations in theinter-symbol transition interval, a frequency offset, and possibly othercontributions to the signal quality distribution.

Signal quality is opposite to suspiciousness, as used herein; smallerfluctuations mean higher signal quality and lower suspiciousness. In thedepicted case, the distribution 1111 shows that most of the messageelements have a high signal quality. In addition, two outlier messageelements 1112, 1113 have substantially lower signal quality. If themessage agrees with its error-detection code, then the outliers 1112,1113 would be assumed to be correctly demodulated despite their lowsignal qualities. But if the message fails the error-detection test, oneor both of the outliers is/are likely faulted. The receiver can thenalter them to other allowed states of the modulation scheme, and therebyseek the correct message content. In addition, the receiver can exploitan error-detection code as an additional constraint, such as bycalculating one of the faulted message elements explicitly from theerror-detection code. In either case, the information provided by theerror-detection code thereby reduces the number of alterations requiredto reach agreement.

Also shown are two defined ranges of signal quality 1114 and 1115.Message elements having a signal quality in the range 1114 may beallocated to a “possibly faulted” category, whereas any message elementsin the lower 1115 range can be allocated to a “likely faulted” category.

Correcting a Faulted Message Element

The following examples show how the disclosed methods can be used tocorrect the modulation value of a faulted message element.

FIG. 12 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a resourcegrid containing a frequency-spanning message with a faulted messageelement, according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limitingexample, a resource grid 1201 is defined by subcarriers 1202 infrequency and symbol-times 1203 in time. A frequency-spanning message1204 includes message elements, one message element per subcarrier, in asingle symbol-time. One of the message elements 1205 (stipple) isfaulted; its signal is distorted by noise or interference to the extentthat its modulation state is incorrectly demodulated by the receiver.

The message 1204 may include an error-detection code 1206 (checkerboardhatch). For example, the error-detection code 1206 may be a parityconstruct fitting in a single resource element as shown. Theerror-detection code may be configured to indicate that a fault existsin the message, without attempting to localize the fault. The receivercan use the waveform fluctuations and modulation deviation values toidentify the faulted message element, and can then calculate thecorrected modulation of the faulted message element according to theerror-correction code. Thus, as soon as the single faulted messageelement has been determined, the correct value can be calculated fromthe error-detection code. When calculated in this way, the receiver canclear the fault by a rapid and low-cost method that guarantees that themitigated message will agree with its error-detection code. In addition,the waveform data may indicate that the fault is in the error-detectioncode itself, while the message elements all have high signal quality, inwhich case the faulty error-detection code can be ignored. A singlefaulted message element can be mitigated using a short parity construct1206 as shown, without calling for a retransmission, and without bulkyCRC or FEC codes.

If the message has more than one fault, the receiver can identify themaccording to their waveform irregularities, and can apply furthermitigation based on the form and format and content and meaning of themessage, as described below.

In some embodiments, the message may include two error-detection codes,one at each end of the message. The first error-detection code may bedetermined by the bit values in the message and in the seconderror-detection code, while the second error-detection code may bedetermined by the bit values in the message and in the firsterror-detection code. In this way, multiple faults can be identifiedaccording to the waveform, and can be corrected according to oneerror-detection code, while the success of that mitigation may bechecked by the other error-detection code.

The message may include a demodulation reference 1207 (diagonal hatch).The receiver may use the demodulation reference 1207 to recalibrate thepredetermined modulation levels of the modulation scheme. Thedemodulation reference 1207 may occupy just a single resource element,as shown. For example, the demodulation reference 1207 may be ashort-form demodulation reference exhibiting the maximum and minimumpredetermined amplitude levels of the modulation scheme, such as the twobranch amplitudes of a QAM state, from which the other amplitude levelscan be calculated by interpolation.

The receiver can determine that the message 1204 includes at least onefaulted message element if the message disagrees with theerror-detection code 1206. If there is no error-detection code, then thereceiver can attempt to detect the fault by determining whether themessage 1204 makes sense in the context it was received, or if itviolates a format or other expected convention, or by another diagnosticbased on the content of the message. In such cases, the signalfluctuations or the modulation deviations may indicate which messageelement is most likely faulted. In each case, the receiver can attemptto mitigate the fault by altering the modulation state of the mostlikely faulted message element and re-testing the altered message.

In the depicted example, the message 1204 includes no CRC or FEC codesince the receiver can localize and correct faults based on the waveformand the brief error-detection code. In a short message, bulky prior-arterror-detection codes may represent an excessive burden, whereas ashort-form error-detection code occupying a single resource element maybe a small price for improving the communication reliability.

In other embodiments, such as longer messages, the message may include aCRC or FEC (Turbo, Polar, LDPC, etc) code or other error code. In thatcase, the receiver may use the CRC or FEC code in combination with thewaveform suspiciousness or signal quality determinations tocooperatively localize and rectify the faulted message element orelements. Once the faulted message element has been identified, theerror-detection code may be sufficient to determine the corrected valueof the faulted message element. The codes may be used by the receiver incooperation with the waveform signal quality analysis, to accelerate thefault mitigation. Hence applications that are already committed to usingCRC or FEC codes for fault detection can enhance their mitigationoperations by including the waveform analysis, and may thereby rapidlylocalize the fault and determine the corrected value. The waveformmeasurements may be particularly helpful in determining whether themessage is so corrupted that it is unrecoverable, as when the number offaulted message elements exceeds the maximum detection limit of thecode. In addition, the waveform data can also be used to clear anyambiguities about the correct value of the faulted message elements. Thewaveform analysis and mitigation, coupled with CRC or FEC codes ifpresent, can thereby repair a corrupted message, in real-time, by thereceiver alone, at negligible cost, according to some embodiments.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a faulted message element, according to some embodiments.The flowchart items may be executed in any order. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, a receiver receives a message and, if corrupted,finds the faulted message element by waveform analysis, followed bymitigation.

At 1301, the receiver receives a message having multiple messageelements, each message element modulated according to a modulationscheme involving amplitude or phase modulation or both. The message isfrequency-spanning, that is, the message is included in an OFDM symbolin which multiple subcarrier signals of the message (and othersimultaneous signals) appear superposed. The receiver digitizes the OFDMsymbol (optionally after frequency downshifting) and extracts eachsubcarrier waveform by narrow-band digital filtering, thereby producinga signal waveform for each subcarrier message element.

At 1302, the receiver demodulates the message. For each subcarrier, thereceiver measures the signal amplitude or phase, or other modulationparameter, and compares to a set of predetermined amplitude or phaselevels, selecting the closest predetermined level. If the message ismodulated in a QAM modulation scheme involving orthogonalamplitude-modulated branch signals, the receiver separates the twobranches and selects the closest predetermined amplitude level for eachbranch. If the modulation scheme is PSK, the receiver determines thephase and compares to a set of predetermined phase levels. If themodulation scheme is amplitude-phase (“A-P”) modulation, the receiverdetermines the amplitude and phase of the waveform and compares topredetermined amplitude and phase levels. In each case, the receiverdetermines the modulation state of the message element according to theclosest modulation state, or the closest predetermined amplitude andphase levels, of the modulation scheme.

At 1303, the receiver calculates a digest or hash of the demodulatedmessage and compares to an error-detection code, such as a CRC or FEC orparity construct, associated with the message. If there is agreement,the task is done at 1304. If not, at 1305 the receiver attempts tolocalize and correct the faulted message element or elements.

At 1305, the receiver analyzes the waveform of each message element. Thereceiver determines the fluctuation in waveform parameters, such as thefluctuation in amplitude and phase, across the symbol-time of eachmessage element. At 1306, the receiver determines the modulationdeviation, or difference between each message element's receivedmodulation and the predetermined modulation states of the modulationscheme. The modulation deviation may be a sum or magnitude or square orother combination of distances, each distance being the differencebetween the received amplitude or phase or branch amplitude, and theclosest predetermined amplitude or phase or branch amplitude level ofthe modulation scheme.

At 1307, the receiver determines a “suspiciousness” of each messageelement by combining the waveform fluctuations and the modulationdeviations. (In another embodiment, the receiver may determine a signalquality related to the fluctuations and modulation deviations and theother listed parameters, wherein high signal quality corresponds tosmall fluctuations and small modulation deviations.) Other parametersmay be included, such as polarization, symbol transition effects, andfrequency offset of the subcarrier signal. In addition, if theerror-detection code includes information about which elements are mostlikely to be faulted, that information can be included in the overallsuspiciousness assessment. However, the procedure can also work if noerror-detection code is available or if the error-detection codeprovides no information regarding the location of the faulted messageelement.

At 1308, the receiver determines the “worst” message element having thehighest suspiciousness (or lowest signal quality) and presumes that theworst message element is faulted. Alternatively, the receiver can selectall of the message elements that have suspiciousness above apredetermined threshold.

At 1309, the receiver can attempt to correct the fault by altering themodulation state assigned to the worst message element. For example, thereceiver can alter the assigned modulation state to another one of thepredetermined modulation states that is next-closest to the receivedmodulation parameters, wherein the next-closest state is the state thatis closest to the received modulation parameters other than the closestone. The receiver can then compare the altered message to theerror-detection code, and thereby determine whether the altered messageis correct. The receiver can proceed to alter the assigned state of themessage element to each of the other allowed states in the modulationscheme, testing each version against the error-detection code. If noneof the fluctuations agrees with the code, the receiver can alter theassigned states of the other message elements that have highsuspiciousness, in a nested search that tests each combination ofsuspicious message elements at each allowed modulation state of themodulation scheme, and may thereby correct the message if possible. Ifnone of those versions agrees with the error-correction code, thereceiver can then request a retransmission, and can process theretransmitted version in the same way. If the retransmitted version isalso faulted, the receiver can assemble a “merged” message by selecting,from the corresponding message elements of the two received versions,the one that has the lower suspiciousness. The receiver can test themerged message against either of the received error-detection codeversions to finally mitigate the fault.

Alternatively, at 1310, the receiver can use the error-detection code tocalculate the correct modulation value of the worst (most suspicious)message element, and attempt to mitigate the message. Someerror-detection codes can be used to “back-calculate” the correctedvalue of a specific faulted message element. Thus if the message has asingle fault only, the receiver may calculate it directly, withouttrying multiple alterations, according to the error-detection code. Someerror-detection codes can back-calculate multiple faults, but these canbecome quite computationally burdensome.

Optionally, the receiver can count how many message elements havesuspiciousness above a predetermined threshold, and if that number isabove a predetermined limit, the receiver may then request aretransmission instead of embarking on a likely futile nested searchthrough the modulation states.

In many cases, a receiver can recover the true message based on waveformsuspiciousness and, if necessary, a limited number of alteration tests,thereby avoiding a costly retransmission. In many cases, the message canbe recovered even in noisy environments with poor reception, using abrief parity construct. With such an error-detection code, the receivercan thereby obtain high communication reliability while avoiding theburden of FEC codes and the like.

The waveform analysis procedures disclosed herein may enable higherreliability and/or wider range of coverage by enabling the receiver tolocalize a faulted message element and correct it.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining a distribution of the signal quality of each messageelement, according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may beexecuted in any order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, at 1401a receiver can receive a message and determine the signal quality ofeach message element, by combining multiple diagnostic tests asindicated in FIG. 10A or FIG. 11B, for example.

At 1402, prepare the histogram by dividing the horizontal axis into anumber of equal-width signal quality bins. Then at 1403, allocate eachmessage element to the bin corresponding to its signal quality, and thencount the number of message elements in each of the histogram bins.

At 1404, determine whether certain “suspicion intervals” of low signalquality have been defined. If so, at 1405 select each message element inthe interval representing the lowest signal quality. If none of themessage elements is in the lowest interval, select each message elementin the next-lowest signal quality interval. If, however, no suspicionintervals are defined, then instead at 1406 select the one messageelement that has the lowest signal quality.

At 1407, alter each of the selected message elements to each of theallowed states of the modulation scheme, starting with the messageelement that has the lowest modulation quality. Initially alter it tothe allowed state that is closest to the message element's modulation(without repeating the already-tested versions). Compare each versionwith the error-detection code to find the correct message content.

Alternatively, if there is just one message element with low signalquality, and therefore is likely the faulted one, and if there is anerror-detection code, then the receiver may directly calculate thecorrect value of the faulted message element according to theerror-detection code.

Signal Quality with Error Code

The foregoing examples show how the waveform data can provide faultlocalization and, in some cases, mitigation. The following examples showhow the waveform data, combined with an error-detection code, canmitigate faults in a message even more effectively.

A wide range of error-detection codes are available for wirelessmessages, including CRC (cyclic redundancy), LDPC (low-density parity),Turbo, and Polar codes, in addition to basic parity and others.Error-detection codes are generally transmitted with the message, andthe receiver generally has foreknowledge of the location and type of theerror-detection code. Thus the receiver can extract the error-detectioncode and compare it to the message, thereby determining whether themessage has been corrupted. In some cases, the comparison involves ahash or digest of the message. The fault may be in the error-detectioncode. Some codes indicate which message elements or which bits arecorrupted, and some can indicate the corrected value of each fault. Mostcurrent error-detection codes consider only bit-flip errors, sinceinsertions and deletions are unlikely in managed transmissions.

The fault may occur in the error-detection code itself. If so, thewaveform data may expose the faulted code. The receiver may ignore thefaulted code, or it may mitigate the code same as the message, or othertask depending on implementation.

Every error-detection code type has a cost. Costs of currenterror-detection codes include the number of resource elements occupiedby the code, the complexity of generating and decoding, the time andenergy involved in calculation, and the latency. Every error-detectioncode has limits. Current error-detection codes are limited in the numberof faults that can be reliably detected.

A big advantage of using signal quality information for faultmitigation, is that faults occur at the level of message elements, notat the bit level. Messages are transmitted as modulated signalsrepresenting message elements; not as bits pre se. Interference does notdirectly affect the bits; it directly affects the modulated signalswhich represent message elements. Specifically, faults occur when noiseand interference alter the apparent modulation state of the messageelement signal, and the receiver then demodulates the faulted signals asthe wrong message element. The associated bit representation iscalculated later. On the other hand, most error-detection codes,including all those listed above, analyze messages at the bit level.They attempt to localize and correct flipped bits, regardless of themessage signals. This disconnect results in high computation costs anddelays. The waveform tests and related signal quality tests disclosedherein operate at the level of modulated signals such as message elementwaveforms, and therefore are more suited to fault mitigation inmodulated signals than the bit-level codes. As shown below, embodimentsthat employ both waveform information and bit-level error-detectioncodes can mitigate faults more efficiently than either method alone, andcan thereby provide substantial savings in time and costs.

For present purposes, the codes may be separated into “hard-decision”codes and “soft-decision” codes. At the receiver, hard-decision codesgenerally assign a binary 0 or 1 to each bit of the received message,whereas soft-decision decoding generally includes values other than 0and 1. In the prior art, soft-decision represents the log-likelihoodratio LLR which is based on the modulation deviation. Due to noise,interference, and measurement error, the soft-decision value is neverexactly 0 or 1. Processing such non-binary values may take longer thanbinary data, but can provide improved fault mitigation in some cases.

Basic parity, for example, is a hard-decision code with very low cost,which detects the presence of one or more bit errors but does notindicate which bit or message element is likely faulted. The waveformdata, on the other hand, can indicate which message element is mostlikely faulted. Thus the receiver can use the basic parity code and thewaveform results together, to both find and correct the faulted messageelement. Such a basic arrangement may be sufficient for the shortmessages typical of many IoT applications, and is compatible withlow-cost reduced capability processors.

CRC codes are also hard-decision, without fault localization, andinvolve low to moderate complexity. The resource cost is 16 bits (or24-32 bits when higher reliability is required). Operationally, the CRCcode is calculated as a remainder after the message bits are divided bya predetermined polynomial. The receiver can check the message using theCRC code in at least two ways. The receiver can recalculate the CRC codebased on the received message, or it can divide the entire sequence(message plus code) by the polynomial and compare the remainder to zero.In either case, as with basic parity, the results indicate whether themessage or code has been corrupted, but not which message elements areincorrectly demodulated. Hence the waveform data can augment themitigation by indicating which message elements are likely faulted. Thereceiver can then attempt to mitigate the faults. For example, in afirst embodiment, the receiver can perform the mitigation bysequentially replacing the likely faulted message elements with each ofthe allowed modulation states of the modulation scheme, and determiningwhether the altered message agrees with the CRC code. In a secondembodiment, the receiver can perform the mitigation by calculating thecorrected values of the likely faulted message elements directly fromthe code. Which mitigation method is less costly depends onimplementation details.

Certain versions of LDPC codes are hard-decision codes involvingmultiple parity tests of a small number of the message elements,selected at random or according to a predetermined pattern. Faults canbe eliminated by a consistency criterion. However, the fault locationsare initially not known, and hence the receiver must perform acomputation-intensive iterative solution to mitigate the message. Thewaveform data can enhance this process by indicating the most likelyfaulted message elements, thereby reducing the ambiguity in localizingthe fault or faults and greatly simplifying the decoding process.Alternatively, the receiver can use the waveform data to allocate thelikely faulted message elements (or their bits) as “erasure” bits whichhave an unknown initial value, and then determine the corrected bitvalues according to the other bits which are linked to it. By eithermethod, the complexity is reduced and the latency is reduced when thewaveform data is used cooperatively with the error-detection code.

Other versions of LDPC are soft-decision codes, by calculating the LLRof each bit, generally based on the modulation deviation. In that case,the receiver can use the waveform data to sharpen the LLR by including,as additional extrinsic information, the width of the amplitude andphase fluctuations, polarity and inter-symbol irregularities, thefrequency offset, and other waveform fault diagnostics, as discussedabove.

In addition, the waveform data can indicate which message elements are“trusted”, that is, very likely not faulted. The receiver can then treatthose trusted bits as hard-decision bits set to 1 or 0. The receiver canthen focus on the remaining bits that have a lower signal quality, basedon the waveform data, thereby saving time and computation. As a furtherenhancement, the receiver can allocate the message bits to threecategories, hard-decision (1 or 0) if the waveform signal quality isabove a high threshold, erasure bits (unknowns) if the signal quality isbelow a low threshold, and soft-decision (LLR) if the signal quality isbetween the low and high thresholds. The receiver may then save time byavoiding further analysis the hard-decision bits.

In addition, the receiver may save further time by attempting to correctthe erasure bits first, and determining whether the resulting messageversion is consistent with the error-detection code. The receiver canattempt to correct the message by first adjusting the bits of messageelements that have the lowest signal quality, as indicated by thewaveform data. If the resulting version is still corrupted, the receivercan then proceed to correct each bit or message element withsuccessively higher signal quality, continuing until the message agreeswith the error-detection code. By either method, the receiver canthereby save time and computations by using the waveform data incooperation with the error-detection code.

Turbo codes and Polar codes are also used in communications. Bothinclude soft-decision based on extrinsic information, which generally isbased on the modulation deviation. Both Turbo and Polar codes repeatedlyperform consistency optimization on the initially soft message data,thereby “hardening” each bit value based on consistency with the otherbits. Both codes can indicate the fault locations and their correctedvalues, in many cases. However, both Turbo and Polar codes requireextensive complex computations by the receiver, which may be difficultfor reduced-capability devices, and may be prohibitive for low-latencyapplications.

The receiver may use the waveform data to enhance and simplify thedecoding of Polar and Turbo codes in several ways. The waveform data maybe added to in the prior-art extrinsic information, thereby providingadditional independent information in determining the LLR values. Withthe improved information about fault probability, the soft-decisionvalues can be set closer to their eventual hard-decision 1-0 values,thereby enabling the receiver to complete the decoding process soonerand with higher success probability. In addition, as mentioned in regardto LDPC, the receiver can “freeze” the bits of the message elements thathave high waveform signal quality, and thereby focus the mitigation onthe remaining less-certain bits.

As a further option, the receiver can use the Turbo and Polar codes, andthe soft-decision versions of LDPC, and other soft-decision codes, tocalculate an overall confidence level of the final decoded messageversion, based on the waveform data. For example, the confidence levelcan be based on which message elements were found to be incorrect. Forexample, if a particular message solution involved a few faulted messageelements and all of them had poor signal quality, then the confidencelevel of that message solution would be high. But if the messagesolution required alteration of message elements that had high signalquality, the confidence in that solution would be much lower because itseems unlikely that the corrected version would require changes inmessage elements that show no evidence of interference. Thus thereceiver may select, as the preferred version, the one that involvesaltering message elements with low signal quality and avoids alteringthose with high signal quality.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining which message element is faulted, according to someembodiments. The flowchart items may be executed in any order. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, a receiver attempts to correct afaulted message using waveform fluctuation measurements, modulationdeviations, and an associated error-detection code.

At 1501, the receiver receives the message, demodulates it, compares themessage to an error-detection code (such as a CRC or Turbo or LDPC orPolar or a short-form error-detection construct) associated with themessage, and determines that the message disagrees with theerror-detection code, and hence there is at least one faulted messageelement.

At 1502, the receiver determines the waveform fluctuations, modulationdeviations, and suspiciousness of each message element. The receiverthen selects the “worst” message element, having the highestsuspiciousness.

In evaluating the suspiciousness of the message elements, the receiverchecks the signal quality of the error-detection code resource elementsas well as the original message elements. That is, the receiverdetermines the suspiciousness of each resource element of theerror-detection code, because the error-detection code may be faulted.Occasionally one of the error-detection elements may be corrupted evenif the rest of the message is intact. If so, the receiver may detect thefault according to the waveform data, and may choose to ignore theerror-detection code. Thus at 1503, the receiver determines whether theworst message element is in the error-detection code. If so, then theerror-detection code cannot be trusted, and the flow proceeds to 1505below.

However, if the worst message element is not part of the error-detectioncode, then the worst message element must be somewhere in the rest ofthe message, and the error-detection code may be assumed to be correct.Therefore at 1504 the receiver calculates the correct value of the worstmessage element according to the error-detection code. With some codes,the receiver can subtract the values of the other message elements,other than the worst one, from the error-detection code, therebydetermining the correct value of the worst message element. With othererror-detection codes, involving a more complicated function of themessage data, the receiver can sequentially replace the worst messageelement with each of the legal modulation states, checking each versionagainst the error-detection code, and thereby determine the correctvalue of the worst message element in some cases. Thus with theerror-detection code, the receiver can rapidly determine the correctvalue of the single faulted message element if the location is known.

At 1505, after deriving one or more candidate solutions, the receiverchecks the content of the message solution to ensure that it makes sensein the context of the relevant application, follows expected forms andformats, has no parameters out of range, and other logical tests toreveal remaining errors. If at 1506 the message passes these tests(“seems ok”) then the task is done at 1510. If not, then the receivercan attempt to reconstruct the message by altering the two worst messageelements as follows.

At 1507, the receiver determines which two message elements are theworst two, having the highest suspiciousness. The receiver thensequentially alters the modulation state of one of the worst two, andcalculates the value of the other one according to the error-detectioncode, as described above. The receiver then checks that the content,format, and so forth are as expected at 1508. If exactly one of thealterations produces a satisfactory version (compliant with expectedtype and format and other logical tests), the task is done at 1510. Ifnone of the alterations produces a satisfactory version of the messageby these criteria, or if two of the versions are equally satisfactory,then the mitigation is ambiguous, in which case the receiver requests aretransmission of the message at 1509.

Thus the receiver has attempted to correct the message by deriving thevalue of the most likely faulted message element according to theerror-detection code, and if that fails, the receiver alters themodulation state of the two message elements with the highestsuspiciousness while applying the error-detection constraint. Inaddition, the receiver has applied a series of logical tests on thealtered message to determine whether the fault mitigation wassuccessful. This strategy may save substantial time and resources whileenhancing communication range and reliability, even with fadingpropagation and noisy electromagnetic environments.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a message according to a hard-decision code and waveformdata, according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may be executedin any order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, at 1601 areceiver receives a wireless message and determines, according to anassociated error-detection code, that the message is corrupted. Theerror-detection code in this case is one of the hard-decision types suchas basic parity, CRC, or LDPC.

At 1602, the receiver determines the waveform parameters related tosignal quality of each message element, such as the amplitudefluctuation distribution, the phase fluctuation distribution, thefrequency offset, the polarization, and the inter-symbol transition.Based on a combination of the waveform measurements, the receiverselects the worst one and a second-worst one. (Alternatively, thereceiver can determine all of the message elements that have signalqualities below a predetermined threshold.)

At 1603, the receiver determines whether the error-detection code iscapable of back-calculation (that is, can it determine the correct valueof a particular message bit, or the correct modulation state of aparticular message element).

If not, at 1604 the receiver attempts to find the correct modulationstate of the worst message element by successively replacing the worstmessage element with each of the legal modulation states and testingeach version with the error-detection code at 1605. The double-endedarrow (here and elsewhere) indicates that the two steps are performedrepeatedly until either an agreement is reached or all of the legalmodulation states have been tried.

At 1605, the receiver checks each of the variations for agreement withthe error-detection code, and if so, the task is done at 1608. If not,the receiver tries another modulation state at 1604.

At 1606, the receiver has tried all of the modulation states in place ofthe worst message element, without success. Therefore, the receiver nowtries a nested grid search involving the worst and the second-worstmessage elements together.

At 1607, the receiver tests each of the double-replacement versionsagainst the error-detection code, and if any version agrees, the task isdone at 1608. If all combinations fail, it requests a retransmission at1609.

Returning to 1603, if the error-detection code is capable ofback-calculation, then at 1611 the receiver tries to calculate thecorrect value of the worst message element using the error-detectioncode. If the resulting message version agrees with the error-detectioncode at 1612, the task is done at 1616.

If not, at 1614 the receiver then successively replaces the second-worstmessage element with each of the legal states, and then re-calculatesthe expected value of the worst message element according to theerror-detection code. Each version is then tested at 1615, and ifsuccessful the task is done at 1616.

If none of the replacements results in agreement, the receiver requestsa retransmission at 1617. In other embodiments, the receiver may try anested grid search with the three worst message elements, in which twoof them are selected sequentially across all of the legal modulationstates, while the third one is back-calculated according to theerror-detection code.

Optionally, at 1618 after achieving a successful agreement with theerror-detection code, the receiver may perform a “reasonableness” testof the resulting message version, based on the content of the message.For example, the receiver can check whether the putative correctedmessage obeys the expected format, stays within accepted limits ofparameters, has a meaning or intent consistent with the associatedapplication, and whether the message is of the expected type, amongother content-based tests.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor mitigating a message using a soft-decision code and waveform data,according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may be executed inany order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, at 1701 a receiverreceives a message and determines, according to an appendederror-detection code, that the message is corrupted. The error-detectioncode in this example is a type that incorporates soft-decision based inpart on extrinsic information, such as the modulation deviation. Forexample, the code may be a Turbo or Polar code, or an LDPC codeincluding soft-decision, among others. Generally these codes candetermine whether the message is corrupted, and can indicate thelocations of the faults at the bit level, and can indicate the correctedvalues (as long as the total number of faulted bits is below a maximumlimit) but at substantial cost.

At 1702, the receiver analyzes the waveform data to measure theamplitude fluctuations and phase fluctuations (or the widths of thecorresponding distribution functions), irregularities in polarization orinter-symbol transitions, and a possible frequency offset of eachmessage element, as an indicator of interference. Importantly, thewaveform analysis includes the error-detection code signals as well asthe message signals, so that corrupted error-detection codes can beintercepted early.

At 1703, the receiver determines, based on the waveform data, whetherthe error-detection code includes any likely-faulted message elements,and if so, requests a retransmission at 1704.

The receiver also checks, at 1705, whether the number of likely-faultedmessage elements exceeds a predetermined limit, such as the maximumrepair capacity of the error-detection code, and if so, requests aretransmission.

If the error-detection code does not have likely faults, and if thenumber of likely faulted message elements is below the limit, then at1706 the receiver combines the waveform data and the other extrinsicdata of each message element, to form a more complete determination ofthe LLR of each message element and its associated bits.

Optionally, at 1707, the receiver may lock certain message elementvalues that have very high signal quality according to the waveformdata. Those locked message elements may be held constant at theirdemodulated values while the error-detection code proceeds to analyzeand mitigate the other, less-high-quality message elements. Locking thebest ones may save time and computations.

At 1708, the receiver may then run the decoding procedures of theerror-detection code, and thereby attempt to decode the message.

Finally, at 1709, the receiver may check the decoded and mitigatedmessage by determining a confidence level according to the content ofthe message, such as the format used, the type as expected, legalparameter ranges within limits, and the meaning or intent of the messagerelative to the context or the previous similar messages of thereceiver. Such a logical content-based review of the mitigated messagemay enable the receiver to catch improperly decoded messages.

Artificial Intelligence Waveform Analysis

A well-trained AI model can enhance the signal quality evaluation basedon measurements of the waveform of each message element. For example, AIcan sharpen the determination of the amplitude and phase fluctuationdistributions, and can enhance the selection of the most likely faultedmessage elements, and can manage the selection and confirmation of thecorrected message elements according to codes and logical tests. Ofteneach waveform distribution function differs subtly, in the faultedmessage element, relative to that of the non-faulted message elements. Areceiver sensitized to the fluctuation distribution can sharpen thedistinction by correlating multiple tests, and thereby detect the faultlocations.

The AI model can also sharpen the other waveform-based tests, such asthe modulation deviation, the polarization ratio, the frequency offset,and symbol transition irregularities, by discerning subtleinconsistencies. Likely there are other waveform parameters orcorrelations that the AI model can discover for identifying the faultlocation, correlations that may never be known to humans due to thecomplexity but which can be exploited by a properly trained AI model.

The AI model can also manage the correlation of the multiple waveformmeasurements. Often a small irregularity appears in various waveformtests, but it only becomes a significant fault indicator when all of themeasurements are combined in a manner that the AI model can develop.Thus by developing correlations and relationships among the variouswaveform measurements, the AI model can localize a faulted messageelement even when the overall data is highly noisy.

AI can also assist by checking proper form and format which aregenerally constrained by the type of the message. The AI model can alsoanalyze the content and meaning of the message, and can thereby assesswhether message makes sense in the context of the application. Forexample, the AI model can determine whether the message has been garbledor is somehow illegal or otherwise unexpected, based on context or rulesor format or out-of-range values, for example.

The AI model may localize the faulted message element(s) based on thecontent or meaning of the message. For example, the AI model mayinterpret the intent of the message, based on its type, and detect aninconsistent message element based on the expected meaning. If multiplecandidate meanings are possible, the AI model can calculate theprobability of each candidate message version, and thereby determine theoverall fault probability of each message element, based on theprobability of each candidate message version.

The AI model may also use historical data, such as prior messagesreceived by the current receiver, or prior commonly received bitsequences, or other patterns of message elements, to detect a fault. Forexample, the AI model can be trained using numerous prior unfaultedmessages to this receiver, or other receivers in similar context, andcompare the faulted message elements to the prior ones to find a likelyfault location. The AI model can compile a list of message elementsequences or bit sequences that frequently occur in messages to thereceiver, and a second list of bit sequences or message elementssequences that seldom occur. By comparing the bit sequences or messageelement sequences of an incoming message to those lists, the AI modelmay reveal an unusual sequence that indicates likely faulting.

When properly configured and trained, the AI model can detect subtlecorrelations between the various test results, correlations that may beinvisible to even an expert human investigator. The AI model can thenexploit those correlations to optimize the validity of the finalmitigation selection, and thereby rescue a corrupted message without thedelays and costs of a retransmission.

The AI model may provide, as output, a matrix of probability values, inwhich each probability value is the probability that a particularmessage element is correctly demodulated according to a particularmodulation state. The matrix thus includes all of the message elementsof the message on one axis, and all of the modulation states of themodulation scheme on the other axis, and each probability value is theprobability that the message element has the corresponding modulationstate. The probability values may be based on the waveform tests andother inputs. The AI model may impose consistency on the probabilityvalues, so that each message element's sum of probability values, acrossall of the candidate message versions, is no greater than 1.0. The sumof probability values, for a particular message element, may be lessthan 1.0 due to severe distortion, and that may reveal the faultedmessage element. Alternatively, the message element may have two or moreprobability values corresponding to two or more different modulationstates, which also indicates interference. The AI model may thenlocalize the likely faulted message elements and can also select betweenmultiple possible corrections according to the probability values of thefaulted message element or elements.

The following examples show how an AI model can assist the waveformanalysis, fault localization, and message recovery in real-time.

FIG. 18 is a schematic showing an exemplary embodiment of a neural netartificial intelligence model, according to some embodiments. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, an AI structure 1800, depictedhere as a neural net, has a number of inputs 1801, one or moreintermediate layers of internal functions 1803, 1805 and one or moreoutputs 1807. The internal functions 1803, 1805 are operationallyconnected to the inputs 1801 and each other by links 1802, 1804, whilethe output 1807 is connected to the last layer of the internal functions1606 by further links 1806. Although links are shown connecting only afew of the internal functions, in many AI structures each input and eachinternal function is linked to all of the internal functions of thesucceeding layer. All of the links are unidirectional in this case;other embodiments include links going backwards and other complextopologies, although doing so can inhibit convergence.

The AI structure 1800 is turned into an AI “model” by adjusting numerousadjustable variables in the internal functions 1803, 1805. In someembodiments, the links 1802, 1804, 1806 can also include adjustablevariables, while others are simple transfer links. The internalfunctions can include any type of calculation or logic relating theinternal function's input link values to its output link values. In someembodiments, all of the output link values of a particular internalfunction are identical, while in other embodiments each link can have adifferent value and a different relation to that internal function'sinput link values.

The adjusting or “tuning” or “training” of the adjustable variables isgenerally performed using data related to the problem that the AI modelis intended to solve. For example, if the AI model is intended todetermine whether a particular message element is faulted, the data mayinclude waveform amplitudes and phases, the width of amplitudefluctuations and phase fluctuations, modulation deviations relative topredetermined levels, the polarization of each message element, thefrequency offset relative to the subcarrier frequency, the rate ofchange of modulation during a transition interval between symbols, amongother waveform features. Further inputs may include the independentlymeasured noise and interference levels, a demodulation referenceproximate to the message, an error-detection code such as a CRC or Turboor parity or other code if present, and the like. The inputs may furtherinclude specifications such as the required format and value limits forthe type of message received, among other governing rules. Furtherinputs may include historical records such as a compendium of previouslyreceived messages of this type, or a digest of previously receivedmessages by the present receiver, or a table of commonly seen bitsequences or character sequences (or a table of improbable bit sequencesor character sequences) for the current message type and receiver, amongother historical data. The inputs may further include the context of themessage, such as the application and its tasks, the QoS or other measureof the receiver's expectations, including data that may assist the AImodel in interpreting the meaning (or the intended meaning) of themessage.

The resulting output 1807 may be a probability that each message elementis faulted. The outputs 1807 may further include an uncertainty in thedetermination of the fault probability of each message element. Theoutputs may further include a suggestion of the corrected value of eachof the message elements that were determined as likely faulted. Theoutputs may further include uncertainty estimates for each of thesuggested corrections, for each of the presumed faulted messageelements.

In cases where more than one meaning or intent can be assigned to themessage, the AI model may calculate a probability for each meaning orintent, based on the context, or on historical records of common oruncommon interpretations, or on the number of message elements that mustbe altered to match each of the interpretations, or other criteria forestimating the probability that each of the different interpretations isthe correct one. In addition, the outputs may include a table ofprobability values for each message element, for each interpretation ofthe message, indicating whether the required alterations of each messageelement are consistent with the waveform data for that message element.The outputs may further include an estimate of the uncertainty of eachprobability determination in that table, thereby assisting the receiverin deciding whether to act on the results or disregard them or request aretransmission, for example.

The model output is then compared 1809 to an independent determination1808 or “ground truth” of the message element. The truth 1808 may bedetermined according to an unfaulted retransmission of the message, forexample.

During development of the model, after each prediction is compared tothe truth 1608, the adjustable variables are generally changed in somefashion, and the probability is recalculated. If the result is in betteragreement with the truth 1808, the variables may be further adjusted inthe same fashion, and if the prediction is worse they may be reversed oradjusted in some other way. After the output 1807 has reached asatisfactory agreement with the truth, another message element may bepresented at the inputs, and the process may be repeated. Typicallymillions or billions of examples are required to achieve goodperformance. When completed, the variables are typically frozen in theiroptimal values, although in some cases the user may be able to revisethem to personalize the model.

A well-trained AI model may be able to perform complex tasks better thaneven an expert human, and in a small fraction of the time, at negligiblecost after development. AI models tend to be most adept at solvingproblems that are highly complex, with multiple interacting orcorrelated parameters and highly nonlinear effects. In the context ofwaveform fault localization, AI may contribute beneficially inpredicting which message elements of a message are most likely faulted.In addition, AI may be able to predict the correct value of the faultedmessage element by exploiting subtle and complex correlations in theinput data. In addition, after accumulating data on multiple faults inmultiple messages, another AI model may be trained to suggest when toswitch to a different modulation scheme, and which scheme to use, basedon the fault types observed, the QoS required, the size of messages, andother factors.

FIG. 19 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor determining the probability that a message element is faultedaccording to the waveform of the message element, using an AI model,according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may be executed inany order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, an AI model 1902takes, as input 1901, waveform data about the message element, such asfluctuations of the amplitude or phase observed during the messageelement, the amplitude and phase modulation deviations relative to aclosest predetermined amplitude or phase level of the modulation scheme,the received amplitude for each message element, error-detection codesassociated with the message, the measured polarization of the receivedmessage element, a frequency offset of each message element relative tothe central frequency of the subcarrier, a measure of the smoothness ordistortion of the waveform during transitions into and out of eachmessage element's symbol-time, and possibly further parameters notdirectly related to the waveform such as the noise or interferencelevels (as measured during a non-transmission resource element, forexample) and any demodulation references proximate to the message. TheAI model may also take as input various threshold values, such asthresholds that indicate whether a particular waveform parameter orother parameter is an “outlier” and therefore more likely to be a fault.In addition, general inputs such as the numerology or bandwidth or timeduration of the message element, the modulation scheme involved, andother data directly or indirectly related to message faults.

The AI model can also take as input a compilation of prior messagesreceived by this receiver or similar receivers, a digest of the priormessages such as the occurrence of certain bit patterns or messageelement values, the expected form and format of the message according toits type on context, standards and rules governing how the message is tobe configured, and other content-based information that may becorrelated with a fault.

The AI model 1902 produces output 1903 including an estimate of theprobability that each of the message elements is faulted. As an option,the AI model can also provide outputs such as a determination of thesignal quality or suspiciousness of the message element based on theinput data. In addition, the AI model, or another model using the sameor similar input data, can estimate the uncertainty in each prediction.The model may also suggest a corrected value for the putative faultedmessage elements. If two or more message corrections are equally likely,then the AI model can flag the message as ambiguous or unparseable. Theuncertainty of the prediction is especially valuable because itindicates whether the prediction is to be trusted and acted upon, ordiscarded as unreliable. Most AI models lack this important capability,and fail to indicate the uncertainty of the results to the user.

As a further option, the AI model may provide as output a tabulation oftwo or more candidate message versions. The probability of each versionmay then be calculated according to the faults assumed, and thecorrections assumed, to generate each candidate version from theoriginal faulted message. For example, if one of the candidate messagesrequires only one message element's modulation to be altered, and thatmessage element exhibits a large amplitude fluctuation width, then theprobability of the candidate message being correct would be relativelyhigh. Another candidate message that requires multiple message elementsto be altered, and some of those message elements have lowsuspiciousness, then the overall probability of that candidate messageversion would be extremely low. The AI model can then suggest the mostlikely candidate message version as the best guess, and can provide theuncertainty of that determination. If there are two or more candidatemessage versions with about the same high overall probability, then theAI model can indicate that the message as received is ambiguous. Thereceiver may decide to ignore an ambiguous message, or request aretransmission, or pick one of the candidate message versions, or otheraction depending on the application needs.

FIG. 20 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor localizing a likely faulted message element using an AI model,according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may be executed inany order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, at 2001 a wirelessentity (base station, core network, user device, edge computer, or otherwirelessly connected device) receives or determines or otherwise managesto use an AI model. The AI model includes a number of adjustablevariables which have already been tuned (usually by another entity suchas a supercomputer). The AI model is configured to determine theprobability that each message element of a received message is faulted,based on the message element's waveform properties, message content, andother data.

At 2002, if not sooner, the wireless entity receives a demodulationreference which is concatenated with or embedded in or sufficientlyproximate to the message, to serve as a fresh calibration of modulationlevels for demodulating the message elements.

At 2003, each message element is demodulated by comparing its modulationstate (or its amplitude or phase modulation values) to the predeterminedmodulation states (or modulation levels) as determined from thedemodulation reference (or derived or calculated therefrom), andselecting the predetermined modulation level closest to the messageelement's modulation. Then the waveform parameters of the messageelement's signal are analyzed to determine the fluctuations in amplitudeor phase (or other waveform parameter) within the symbol-time of themessage element, and also to determine the modulation deviations, inamplitude and/or phase of the message element signal relative to theclosest predetermined amplitude or phase levels of the modulationscheme.

At 2004, the amplitude and phase fluctuation data, and the modulationdeviation data, and optionally other data related to the waveform, andoptionally other data not related to the waveform, are provided asinputs to the AI model. Optionally at 2005, certain operational oruser-centric parameters such as the user's requested QoS, or apreference regarding retransmissions versus fault repairing, or a delaytolerance for example, are provided as further inputs. In addition, thecontext of the message, the form and format specified for messages ofthe present type, a historical compendium of prior messages of this typereceived by this receiver, a probability distribution of various bitsequences or character sequences for messages of the current type, andother historical data may be provided as further input.

At 2006, the AI model is executed on the input data and generates anoutput consisting of an estimate of the probability that each messageelement is faulted. Optionally 2007, the AI model can determine theuncertainty in the probability estimate, since an uncertain estimate isnot as valuable as a high-confidence prediction. Optionally 2008, thetype of each fault (amplitude or phase, adjacent or non-adjacent, etc.)can be determined as well. This may lead to appropriate mitigation suchas changing the modulation scheme if the fault rate gets too high, andselecting a different modulation scheme according to the observed faulttypes. Optionally 2009, the AI model can consider the message content,using previous messages of a similar type, correlating most-probable andmost-improbable bit sequences or symbol sequences according to messagetype, and/or the types of faults currently being detected in thenetwork, for example.

Optionally 2010, the entity can attempt to refine the AI model byadjusting the model variables according to whether the prediction iscorrect or incorrect regarding the fault probability predictions foreach message element. For example, if the AI model predicts, with highcertainty, that a particular message element is faulted, and it laterturns out that the message element is not faulted, the model may needsome fine-tuning to avoid such errors in the future. Alternatively, ifthe prediction is correct, then the model variables related to theprediction may be “firmed”, that is, made more resistant to futureadjustment, to avoid losing the high-quality predictive power.

FIG. 21 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor correcting a corrupted message using an AI model, according to someembodiments. The flowchart items may be executed in any order. Asdepicted in this non-limiting example, at 2101 a receiver receives amessage and determines that it is corrupted. The determination may bebased on an associated error-detection code, an illegal value in themessage content, a conflict with an expected for or format according tothe context, a nonsensical meaning or intent, or other indicator ofcorruption.

At 2102, if not sooner, the receiver (or an associated processor)obtains or develops or otherwise arranges to use an artificialintelligence model. The AI model has already been trained fordetermining a corrected version of a message, based on a large amount ofprevious input data on similar types of messages.

At 2103, the receiver provides, as input to the AI model, data on themeasured properties of each message element of the corrupted message.For example, the measured properties may be the amplitudes and/or phases(depending on the modulation scheme), the predetermined modulationlevels (according to a proximate demodulation reference), and othermeasured properties of each message element for demodulation. Theerror-detection code, if present, is included as part of the measuredproperties data, just like the rest of the message.

At 2104, the receiver provides, as further input to the AI model,waveform parameters of the signal in each message element. For example,the waveform parameters may include the fluctuations in amplitude andphase of each message element, the FWHM width of the fluctuationdistribution, and its peak offset. The modulation deviations, relativeto the predetermined modulation levels, of each message element, mayalso be provided. Further waveform parameters such as the polarization,characteristics of the inter-symbol transitions, and frequency offsetmay be provided.

At 2105, the receiver provides, as further input to the AI model,certain rules or legality data, such as the requirements andspecifications for the current message type, its required form andformat, and permissible ranges of syntax and parameter values.

At 2106, the receiver provides, as further input to the AI model, thecontent data of the message, such as the possible meanings or intents ofthe message in the current context. The content data may include dataabout the syntax and numerical parameters present in the message, orinformation about the application or context related to the message, orthe expected intent of the message, for example.

At 2107, the receiver provides, as further input to the AI model,historical data such as a listing of previous messages to the currentreceiver, or to other receivers of the same message type. In addition,the historical data may include previous faults and fault mitigationattempts, by the current AI model or other models, and optionally thesuccess or failure of such attempts. The AI model can learn from suchprior attempts, and determine how to better recognize the faultedmessage elements, how to mitigate them, and how to avoid the pitfallsthat have been seen before.

At 2108, the receiver provides, as further input to the AI model,external factors such as the current background level of electromagneticradiation (as determined according to a proximate reference element withno local transmission therein), properties of the demodulationreference(s) which the receiver used to recalibrate the modulationlevels that were then used to demodulate the message.

At 2109, the receiver activates the AI model, which processes the inputsand predicts the corrected value of the likely faulted message element.The AI model can also determine which message element is the most likelyfaulted, based on some or all of the same inputs. If multiple messageelements are suspicious, the AI model may be able to evaluate theprobability that each of them is faulted. The AI model may be able todetermine, based on message content or historical data, what the mostlikely correct values are for each faulted message element. In caseswhere the AI model finds multiple possible corrections, the AI model maydetermine the probability of each of the possible corrected versions,and may select the most likely version. However, if two or more of thecorrected versions are found with about the same high probability, theAI model may alert the receiver that the corrected version is ambiguous.

FIG. 22 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor an AI model to select a worst message element according tocorrelations among waveform measurements, according to some embodiments.The flowchart items may be executed in any order. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, a receiver can use an AI model to search forsubtle correlations among waveform parameters and non-waveformparameters of each message element. AI excels in finding patterns andcorrelations in complex data fields. Such subtle or complex correlationsmay be sufficient to identify the faulted message element or elements,even when each individual measurement is inconclusive.

At 2201, a receiver receives a message and determines that it iscorrupted, according to an error-detection code or an illegal value or amis-format or other corruption indicator. At 2202 the receiver obtainsan AI model trained to analyze heterogeneous data sets, such as thevarious waveform measurements, and extract from them certain hiddencorrelations, thereby indicating which message elements are likelyfaulted.

At 2203, the receiver provides the waveform parameters (the width ofamplitude and phase fluctuations, the modulation deviations, amongothers mentioned above), and runs the model at 2204.

At 2205, the AI model provides output indicating the fault probabilityof each message element. Alternatively, the AI model can simply indicatewhich message element has a highest fault probability. In addition, theAI model may indicate the fault probability for that worst messageelement. As a further alternative, the AI model may indicate a number ofmessage elements which all have a fault probability above a thresholdvalue. In some embodiments, the AI model can report the signal qualityor the suspiciousness or other measure of fault probability.

An advantage of using the AI model to analyze the message element datamay be that artificial intelligence is often able to find correlationsamong parameters that humans cannot discern, even when told whichcorrelations are present in the data. Instead of simply adding oraveraging the fluctuation and deviation data, the AI model may develop acomplex logical criterion such as “add 10% to the fault probability ifthe amplitude fluctuation width is greater than the phase fluctuationwidth when the polarization is less than the average modulationdeviation, and subtract 5% from the fault probability otherwise unlessthe message has more than 15 message elements”. Thus the AI model may beable to extract information related to the fault probability of eachmessage element from patterns and correlations in the data that areentirely baffling to the human users. In this way, the AI model may beable to achieve higher success at identifying the faulted messageelement than expert readers.

FIG. 23 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor using an AI model to compare a message to previous unfaultedmessages of the same or similar types, according to some embodiments.The flowchart items may be executed in any order. As depicted in thisnon-limiting example, an AI model can learn the common patterns andsequences of non-faulted messages and then localize faulted messageelements by comparison.

At 2301, a receiver receives a message and determines that it iscorrupted. At 2302, the receiver, or a processor associated with thereceiver, arranges to use an AI model which has been trained torecognize non-faulted messages as well as the most commonly encounteredfaults. For example, the AI model can base the inference on patternssuch as bit sequences, sequences of characters in the message, ranges ofvariables, and the like. The AI model can also be given formatting rulesand other conventions that messages are expected to follow, depending ontype for example.

At 2303, the AI model is also provided with measurement data on theindividual message elements such as the amplitude and phase fluctuationdistributions and modulation deviations, or values derived from themsuch as the width of the distributions and peak offsets, for example. Asfurther input, the model may be provided with information on the type ofmessage, the context or application, what type of message theapplication was expecting if known, and other data about the messageitself. At 2304, optionally, the AI model may be configured to recognizelegal or non-faulted messages according to the same patterns mentionedabove.

At 2305, the receiver executes the AI model. The model determineswhether any unusual or unexpected patterns have been detected in eachmessage element. If so, at 2306 the receiver can (or the model can)allocate the message elements that include the unusual or unexpectedpatterns as suspicious or possibly faulted. Then at 2307, the model canassemble the above analyses including the expected or presumed type andformat, and can thereby predict a fault probability for each of themessage elements. Optionally, but very beneficially, the model can alsoprovide an estimate of the uncertainty in that prediction at 2308.

As a further option, at 2309 the results of this method can be combinedwith the results of the other AI models described in the foregoingexamples, thereby producing an overall assessment of the corrected valueof each faulted message element taking account of all the informationavailable to the model. The AI model may also calculate an uncertaintyin each of the proposed corrections. For example, multiple meanings maybe consistent with the faulted message, in which case the suggestedfault corrections may depend on which meaning or intention was assumedby the AI model. The AI model can select the most likely meaning fromamong the candidate message versions, calculate the probabilityassociated with each candidate message version, and thereby select thebest guess as to the corrected message, as follows.

At 2310 the model can devise a number of possible message correctionsaccording to different presumed meanings, each with a different set ofcorrections and each with a different probability of being theoriginally intended message. Then the AI model can calculate an overallfault probability and an overall correction probability for each messageelement according to each of the candidate messages. The AI model canthen determine whether two or more of the candidate messages have aboutthe same probability of being correct, by combining the probabilities ofeach correction of each faulted message element, and thereby select themessage version that has the highest overall probability. However, ifnone of the candidate messages has a sufficiently high probability, orif two of them have about the same high probability estimate, then theAI model can alert the receiver or other entity that the message isundecodable, and recommend a retransmission.

FIG. 24 is a flowchart showing an exemplary embodiment of a procedurefor using an AI model to determine the meaning or intent of a message,according to some embodiments. The flowchart items may be executed inany order. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a receiver canlocalize faults using an AI model trained on prior messages, bydetecting similarities or differences relative to those prior messages.

At 2401, the receiver receives a wireless message and determines that itis corrupted. At 2402, the receiver obtains or develops an AI modelconfigured to search for unexpected patterns in the message, such asillegal values or unusual content. The AI model may detect patterns inthe bits of the message, or in the demodulated message elements, or inother unexpected sequences in the message.

At 2403, the receiver provides the demodulated values of the messageelements to the AI model. Alternatively, the receiver can supply the rawmodulation levels (amplitudes and phases) along with the predeterminedmodulation levels (from a demodulation reference close to the messagefor example). At 2404, the message type and context are also provided,and the model is executed at 2405.

At 2406, the AI model provides outputs predicting the fault probabilityof each message element based on the meaning and intent of the messageas best “understood” by the model. It also indicates which messageelements deviate from the favored message interpretation, by specifyingan illegal value or violating a format or other unlikely message elementvalue, all in view of the putative meaning.

At 2407, optionally, the AI model can explore to a deeper level bypreparing a number of candidate messages, each with a different meaningor intent, and each requiring a different set of faulted messageelements along with their corrected values. The AI model can thenprepare a table or matrix indicating each message element's faultprobability for each of the candidate messages. The AI model can thencalculate an overall probability for each candidate message, and canalso adjust the fault probability of each message element according tothe probability values of the candidate messages. The AI model can thenselect the candidate message with the highest overall probability as thefavored interpretation. However, if none of the candidate messages hasan overall probability higher than some threshold, such as 90%, thereceiver can determine that the message is unparseable and request aretransmission, or simply ignore it, depending on applicationpreferences. In addition, if two or more of the candidate messages havesimilar high probability estimates, then again the receiver may give upand request a retransmission.

In some embodiments, the AI model may be configured to calculate theuncertainty in each of the derived outputs, such as the probability ofeach candidate message, and the fault probability of each messageelement, and its proposed correct value according to the favoredinterpretation.

FIG. 25 is a chart showing an exemplary embodiment of probability valuesfor each message element and each of the modulation states, according tosome embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, a receiverhas measured the waveform parameters and other parameters associatedwith each message element, and assigned probabilities as to themodulation state of the message element. The receiver has alsodetermined an overall probability that each message element is faulted,regardless of the particular modulation state.

An AI model has analyzed a corrupted message in view of waveformmeasurements of each message element, along with other inputs. The AImodel has then constructed a table 2500 which shows the probability thatthe proper value of message element is each of eight modulation states(A, B, etc.) of a modulation scheme, based on the waveform data and theother inputs. In this case, the message has 12 message elements asindicated by 12 lines in the table (but only four are filled in, forsimplicity). Each column corresponds to one of the eight modulationstates. The table entry shows the probability that the correct value ofthe message element is the modulation state listed at the top. Alsoshown, in a final column 2505, is an overall probability that each ofthe message elements is faulted.

The first message element 2501 has all zeroes except a single “1” forthe modulation state “D”. This means that the first message element 2501is known with high confidence to be a “D”. Accordingly, its faultprobability is shown as zero in the fault probability column 2505.

The second message element 2502 has a probability of 0.9 to be the state“B” and 0.1 probability to be a “D”. Therefore the second messageelement is most probably a “B” but not with complete certainty.Accordingly, its fault probability is slightly raised to 0.05.

The third message element 2503 has 0.6 for state “E” and 0.4 for state“F”. Consequently, it may be an “E” but could well be something else.Hence its fault probability is high, 0.7.

The fourth message element 2504 is all zeroes. This indicates that itsmodulation deviation was so large, or its amplitude fluctuations were sohigh, or another parameter was so extreme, that none of the modulationstates was consistent with the waveform of the message element.Therefore, it is certainly faulted, and hence the fault probability is afull 1.0 in the last column 2505.

The AI model can then determine, based on the table, which messageelements are likely faulted. Depending on the specific data, the AImodel may also estimate the most probable corrected values for eachlikely faulted message element. If there are more faults than theerror-detection code can accommodate, the AI model can guide themitigation process anyway, such as altering the message elements withthe worst waveform parameters, according to certain modulation statesthat may be consistent with the waveform data, and then determiningwhether the altered version passes an error-detection test.

If the AI model finds that multiple candidate message versions arepossible according to the waveform data (and the context), then the AImodel can calculate an overall probability for each of the candidateversions based on the probability values in the table 2500, oralternatively on the net fault probabilities 2505, and may therebyselect the best candidate message version for subsequent action.Optionally, but preferably, the AI model may also indicate the estimateduncertainty in this selection.

Manner of Implementation

Fault detection, localization, and correction by a collaboration betweenwaveform data and an appended error-detection code, as disclosed herein,may be implemented in software or firmware, enabling base stations oruser devices to repair corrupted messages without requesting aretransmission in many cases. The mitigation may also provide valuabledata on fault types and fault rates for each user. The fault analysismay reveal certain modulation states that are frequently faulted. Forexample, certain pairs of states in 16QAM are only 37 degrees apart,whereas other pairs are 90 degrees apart in waveform phase. Hence themessage failures may indicate a higher probability of phase faultingbetween the closely-spaced states than the widely-spaced pairs.

Rapid fault localization and mitigation by the receiver, as disclosedherein, may enable increased overall reliability, and greatly reducedlatency relative to retransmissions, while consuming far less resourcesand radiated power than forward-error-correcting codes and the like.

The wireless embodiments of this disclosure may be aptly suited forcloud backup protection, according to some embodiments. Furthermore, thecloud backup can be provided cyber-security, such as blockchain, to lockor protect data, thereby preventing malevolent actors from makingchanges. The cyber-security may thereby avoid changes that, in someapplications, could result in hazards including lethal hazards, such asin applications related to traffic safety, electric grid management, lawenforcement, or national security.

In some embodiments, non-transitory computer-readable media may includeinstructions that, when executed by a computing environment, cause amethod to be performed, the method according to the principles disclosedherein. In some embodiments, the instructions (such as software orfirmware) may be upgradable or updatable, to provide additionalcapabilities and/or to fix errors and/or to remove securityvulnerabilities, among many other reasons for updating software. In someembodiments, the updates may be provided monthly, quarterly, annually,every 2 or 3 or 4 years, or upon other interval, or at the convenienceof the owner, for example. In some embodiments, the updates (especiallyupdates providing added capabilities) may be provided on a fee basis.The intent of the updates may be to cause the updated software toperform better than previously, and to thereby provide additional usersatisfaction.

The systems and methods may be fully implemented in any number ofcomputing devices. Typically, instructions are laid out on computerreadable media, generally non-transitory, and these instructions aresufficient to allow a processor in the computing device to implement themethod of the invention. The computer readable medium may be a harddrive or solid state storage having instructions that, when run, orsooner, are loaded into random access memory. Inputs to the application,e.g., from the plurality of users or from any one user, may be by anynumber of appropriate computer input devices. For example, users mayemploy vehicular controls, as well as a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen,joystick, trackpad, other pointing device, or any other such computerinput device to input data relevant to the calculations. Data may alsobe input by way of one or more sensors on the robot, an inserted memorychip, hard drive, flash drives, flash memory, optical media, magneticmedia, or any other type of file-storing medium. The outputs may bedelivered to a user by way of signals transmitted to robot steering andthrottle controls, a video graphics card or integrated graphics chipsetcoupled to a display that maybe seen by a user. Given this teaching, anynumber of other tangible outputs will also be understood to becontemplated by the invention. For example, outputs may be stored on amemory chip, hard drive, flash drives, flash memory, optical media,magnetic media, or any other type of output. It should also be notedthat the invention may be implemented on any number of different typesof computing devices, e.g., embedded systems and processors, personalcomputers, laptop computers, notebook computers, net book computers,handheld computers, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, smartphones, tablet computers, and also on devices specifically designed forthese purpose. In one implementation, a user of a smart phone orWi-Fi-connected device downloads a copy of the application to theirdevice from a server using a wireless Internet connection. Anappropriate authentication procedure and secure transaction process mayprovide for payment to be made to the seller. The application maydownload over the mobile connection, or over the Wi-Fi or other wirelessnetwork connection. The application may then be run by the user. Such anetworked system may provide a suitable computing environment for animplementation in which a plurality of users provide separate inputs tothe system and method.

It is to be understood that the foregoing description is not adefinition of the invention but is a description of one or morepreferred exemplary embodiments of the invention. The invention is notlimited to the particular embodiments(s) disclosed herein, but rather isdefined solely by the claims below. Furthermore, the statementscontained in the foregoing description relate to particular embodimentsand are not to be construed as limitations on the scope of the inventionor on the definition of terms used in the claims, except where a term orphrase is expressly defined above. Various other embodiments and variouschanges and modifications to the disclosed embodiment(s) will becomeapparent to those skilled in the art. For example, the specificcombination and order of steps is just one possibility, as the presentmethod may include a combination of steps that has fewer, greater, ordifferent steps than that shown here. All such other embodiments,changes, and modifications are intended to come within the scope of theappended claims.

As used in this specification and claims, the terms “for example”,“e.g.”, “for instance”, “such as”, and “like” and the terms“comprising”, “having”, “including”, and their other verb forms, whenused in conjunction with a listing of one or more components or otheritems, are each to be construed as open-ended, meaning that the listingis not to be considered as excluding other additional components oritems. Other terms are to be construed using their broadest reasonablemeaning unless they are used in a context that requires a differentinterpretation.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method for a wireless receiver tomitigate a fault, the method comprising: a) receiving a messagecomprising message elements, each message element occupying exactly oneresource element of a resource grid, the message element comprising asignal waveform, the signal waveform modulated according to a modulationscheme; b) determining, according to an error-detection code associatedwith the message, that the message is corrupted; c) for each messageelement, determining a signal quality according to the signal waveform;d) for each message element, determining, according to the signalquality, whether the message element is likely faulted; and e)determining, according to the error-detection code, a corrected value ofeach likely faulted message element.
 2. The method of claim 1, whereinthe message is received according to 5G or 6G technology.
 3. The methodof claim 1, wherein for each message element, the signal qualitycomprises at least one of: a) a width of a distribution of amplitudemeasurements; b) a width of a distribution of phase measurements; c) apolarization measurement; d) a frequency measurement; e) a waveform in atransition interval between successive symbol-times; and f) combinationsof these.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein for each message element,the signal quality comprises at least one of: a) a difference betweenthe signal waveform and a modulation state of the modulation scheme; b)a difference between an amplitude of the signal waveform and apredetermined amplitude level of the modulation scheme; c) a differencebetween a phase of the signal waveform and a predetermined phase levelof the modulation scheme; and d) combinations of these.
 5. The method ofclaim 1, wherein for each message element, the signal quality comprisesat least one of: a) a difference between an amplitude of the signalwaveform and an average of amplitudes of other message elements; b) adifference between a phase of the signal waveform and an average ofphases of other message elements; and c) combinations of these.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, wherein for each message element, the signal qualitycomprises at least one of: a) a difference between a polarization of thesignal waveform and an average polarization of the message; b) adifference between a frequency of the signal waveform and apredetermined frequency of a subcarrier of the message element; c) adifference between a frequency of the signal waveform and an averagefrequency of other message elements; d) a difference between the signalwaveform at the beginning and the ending of the message element; and e)combinations of these.
 7. The method of claim 1, further comprisingdetermining that a message element is likely faulted when the signalquality of the message element is below a predetermined threshold. 8.The method of claim 1, wherein the determining a corrected value of eachlikely faulted message element comprises: a) sequentially altering eachof the likely faulted message elements according to each predeterminedmodulation state of the modulation scheme; and b) determining whetherthe message, including the altered message element or message elements,is in agreement with the error-detection code.
 9. The method of claim 1,wherein the determining a corrected value of each likely faulted messageelement comprises assigning a value to a bit of the likely faultedmessage element according to the signal quality of the likely faultedmessage element, wherein the value is different from 0 and differentfrom
 1. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining a correctedvalue of each likely faulted message element comprises combining thesignal quality with extrinsic information, wherein the extrinsicinformation comprises modulation data about the likely faulted messageelement.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein: a) the error-detection codecomprises a CRC (cyclic redundancy check) code or an LDPC (low-densityparity check) code; b) each likely faulted message element is identifiedaccording to the signal quality of the likely faulted message element;and c) the corrected value of each likely faulted message element iscalculated according to the error-detection code.
 12. The method ofclaim 1, wherein: a) the error-detection code comprises a Turbo code ora Polar code; b) the determining a corrected value of each likelyfaulted message element comprises determining a LLR (log likelihoodratio) according to a combination of the signal quality of the messageelement and extrinsic information of the message element, wherein theextrinsic information is related to a difference between the modulationof the message element and a closest modulation state of the modulationscheme.
 13. Non-transitory computer-readable media in a wirelessreceiver, the media containing instructions that, when executed by acomputing environment, cause a method to be performed, the methodcomprising: a) receiving a message comprising message elements, eachmessage element occupying exactly one resource element of a resourcegrid, each message element comprising a waveform signal modulatedaccording to a modulation scheme; b) determining, according to anerror-detection code associated with the message, that the message iscorrupted; c) for each message element, determining a signal qualityaccording to the waveform signal; and d) for each message element,determining, according to the signal quality, whether the messageelement is likely faulted.
 14. The non-transitory computer-readablemedia of claim 13, the method further comprising determining, for eachmessage element, that the message element is likely faulted when thesignal quality of the message element is less than a predeterminedthreshold.
 15. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13,the method further comprising requesting a retransmission when a numberof likely faulted message elements exceeds a predetermined maximum. 16.The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, the methodfurther comprising, for each likely faulted message element, calculatinga corrected value of the likely faulted message element according to theerror-detection code.
 17. The non-transitory computer-readable media ofclaim 13, the method further comprising, for each likely faulted messageelement, combining the signal quality of the likely faulted messageelement with extrinsic information comprising modulation data of thelikely faulted message element.
 18. A method comprising: a) receiving,by a wireless receiver, a message comprising multiple subcarriers of aparticular symbol-time of a resource grid, each subcarrier containing awaveform signal modulated according to a modulation scheme; b)receiving, by the wireless receiver, an error-detection code associatedwith the message; c) determining, according to the error-detection code,that the wireless message comprises at least one fault; d) determining,for each subcarrier, according to the waveform signal of the subcarrier,a distribution of amplitudes of the waveform signal versus time; e)determining, for each subcarrier, a width of the distribution ofamplitudes; f) determining, for each subcarrier, according to the widthof the distribution of amplitudes, whether the waveform signal of thesubcarrier is likely faulted; g) determining, according to theerror-detection code, for each likely faulted waveform signal, acorrected modulation value; and h) determining whether the message,including the corrected modulation value or values, agrees with theerror-detection code.
 19. The method of claim 18, wherein for eachlikely faulted waveform signal, the corrected modulation value isdetermined by successively assigning each modulation state of themodulation scheme to the likely faulted waveform signal, and thendetermining whether the message, including the corrected modulationvalue, agrees with the error-detection code.
 20. The method of claim 18,wherein for each likely faulted waveform signal, the corrected value isdetermined by calculating an LLR (log-likelihood ratio) based at leastin part on a combination of the width of the distribution of amplitudesand extrinsic information, wherein the extrinsic information comprises adifference between a modulation of the waveform signal and apredetermined modulation level of the modulation scheme.